Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE

Mr. Speaker: In accordance with custom, I beg to ask the formal leave of the House to be absent from the Sitting of tomorrow, Friday. I do so as a matter of courtesy to the House and also in case there might be rumours that perhaps I had suddenly been taken ill, or even that I was waiting until Monday to make a personal statement, which I am not. The reason is that I hold the honourable and ancient office of High Steward of Cambridge University, and it is my duty, I think, to be there tomorrow when Their Majesties visit the University.

The House signified its assent for which Mr. Speaker returned his thanks.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Married Officers (Houses)

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will circularise chief constables in England and Wales asking them what steps they have taken to call the attention of the authorities to whom they are responsible to the need for houses for all married police officers who are at present without such houses.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): From my contacts with chief constables individually and collectively, I know them to be fully alive to the need for houses for married officers. The subject has had and will continue to have my close attention. Since the war the number of police houses owned by police authorities has increased by more than 50 per cent., in the main by new construction. New police houses are now being completed at the rate of over 130 a month.

Establishment

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total deficiency between the numbers in the forces and the establishment of the county and borough police forces in England and Wales.

Mr. Ede: The deficiency on 31st March, 1951, was 6,300 men and 328 women.

Mrs. Braddock: Has the attention of the Home Secretary been called to the comments made by the chief constables of East Suffolk and Wallasey, which, I understand, are supported by about 50 per cent. of the chief constables, on the very low standard of the recruits who apply to be taken into the police force? If so, what action does he intend to take to deal with this problem?

Mr. Ede: I have read those comments. I have made some inquiries about the standard of recruitment, and I do not think that one should be unduly depressed by what may have occurred in two forces.

Leicestershire and Rutland (Amalgamation)

Major Conant: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, as a result of amalgamating the Leicestershire and Rutland police forces, the ratepayers of Rutland will have to pay for the police over £2,000 per annum more than before the amalgamation of the forces; and whether he will amend the financial provisions of the scheme.

Mr. Ede: I have received representations to this effect from the Rutland County Council. The financial provisions of the scheme of amalgamation were agreed by the constituent authorities, but I am asking the combined police authority whether they have any proposals to make, in the light of these representations, for the amendment of the financial arrangements. If any such proposals are made to me I will give them sympathetic consideration.

Major Conant: In view of the obvious injustice of the ratepayers of Rutland having to subsidise those of Leicestershire, in the absence of any agreed proposal being put forward would the right hon. Gentleman consider amending this scheme in a way which would keep the finances of the two counties quite


separate, as, for instance, by having a joint chief constable instead of amalgamated forces?

Mr. Ede: I think we had better await the result of the investigation by the newly constituted joint police authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAINTENANCE ORDERS (PRISON SENTENCES)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of men committed to prison by the High Court and the number committed by magistrates in 1950 for failing to pay alimony or maintenance to their wives.

Mr. Ede: The number of men committed to prison by magistrates' courts in 1950 for failing to pay maintenance to their wives was 3,544. Similar information is not available for the High Court but I am informed that only five warrants of commitment for debt were issued by the Divorce Division in the same period.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend bring these distressing figures, which have more than doubled in the last 10 years and which seem to be still increasing, to the notice of the Royal Commission on Matrimonial Law when it is set up?

Mr. Ede: I have no doubt that they will make inquiries into this matter but, after all, when a woman gets a maintenance order she is entitled to take the necessary action to get it enforced.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of the men who went to prison went there voluntarily rather than pay the alimony?

Mr. Ede: I cannot give any statistics on that matter, but I know from my experience as a magistrate that in some cases that does occur.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILDREN (EMIGRATION)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the unsatisfactory aspects of child emigration revealed in the report of the Women's Group on Public Welfare, a copy of which has been sent to him, after a two-year investigation, he will take steps to set up an inter-Departmental committee to arrange for some uniformity

and governmental control in respect of children leaving this country without parents under the various child emigration schemes.

Mr. Ede: I do not consider that an inter-Departmental committee is necessary. The normal inter-Departmental consultations have been proceeding for some time before drafting regulations under Section 33 of the Children Act, 1948, to control the making and carrying out by voluntary organisations of arrangements for the emigration of children. When the regulations are drafted, I shall consult the Advisory Council on Child Care appointed under the Children Act.

Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be much satisfaction from the statement he has made, because there has been much concern about the varying methods of the many and various voluntary organisations on this important work?

Oral Answers to Questions — SULPHUR (CHEMICAL RESEARCH)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement as to the steps he proposes to take to promote the production of the new discovery made by scientists at the Chemical Research Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research which will relieve the sulphur shortage.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): Recent work at this laboratory has produced two results which may help to relieve the shortage of sulphur. One opens up the possibility of substituting nitric acid for rather more than half the sulphuric acid in the manufacture of phosphate fertilisers; the other, which is perhaps the one referred to by the hon. Member, is the possibility of producing sulphur by bacterial means.
Sulphur has been produced by bacteria in the laboratory but further research is required before its industrial possibilities can be assessed. This research is being undertaken with vigour, but at present it must be regarded as a long-range undertaking. The fertiliser manufacturing industry has been told of the results of the laboratory's work on the use of nitric acid in making phosphatic fertilisers, and


the matter is being discussed with representatives of the industry.

Mr. Dodds: Will my hon. Friend ensure that everything possible is done to press on with this important work? Is he optimistic about the future, even if it is the long-term future?

Mr. de Freitas: It is long-term. We are pressing on, but one of the problems is that it is a slow process and we cannot devise any incentive to get the bacteria to speed up their work.

Sir Herbert Williams: Do I understand that bacteria which will change one chemical element into another has been discovered?

Mr. de Freitas: Not at all. This is a matter of using some substance like gypsum, from which it is possible to produce sulphur.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS

Poles

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons of Polish nationality who transferred to the Polish Resettlement Corps have applied for and obtained British nationality.

Mr. Ede: Up to 31st March, 7,978 Poles who passed through the Polish Resettlement Corps had applied for naturalistion and 4,850 had been granted certificates.

Mr. Winterbottom: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this represents only about 7 per cent. of the total passing through the Polish Resettlement Corps? Does he realise that there is dissatisfaction because these men are exempt from the military service applicable to Z reservists? Will he and his colleagues see that these men undertake the responsibilities of being members of our society as well as the enjoyment of its benefits?

Mr. Ede: Certainly.

Ukrainians

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Ukrainians are at present in this country; what type of

work they are doing; and how many have applied for British nationality.

Mr. Ede: Persons who previously lived in the territories forming the Ukraine are recorded as nationals of the different States to which those territories belonged, and it is, therefore, not possible to say how many in all are now in the United Kingdom or have applied for naturalisation. It is known, however, that there are in the United Kingdom about 23,000 former inhabitants of the Ukraine who came to the United Kingdom as European volunteer workers, 8,000 who came as prisoners of war, and 5,000 who came as members of the Polish Forces. Those in the first and second groups were placed in undermanned industries, mainly agriculture, the textile industry and coal mining. Information about the employment of those in the third group is not available. Very few of the persons in these groups can yet be eligible to apply for naturalisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRUELTY TO CHILDREN

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a statement in the Library showing the convictions from 1st January, 1941, until the present time for cruelty to children, where the evidence has shown that permanent impairment of the health of the children has resulted, with the penalty imposed in each case.

Mr. Ede: I regret that the information is not available.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Home Secretary say why it is that people who kill children through cruelty are not prosecuted for murder?

Mr. Ede: I have had one or two cases before me in comparatively recent times where convictions for murder have been recorded.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Is the Home Secretary aware that even where a person has been convicted of this offence—no matter how serious the offence—the maximum penalty which the court of assize can impose upon him is only two years' imprisonment? Does he think that that is sufficient as a maximum penalty in all circumstances?

Mr. Ede: I am not convinced that it is necessary to raise the maximum penalty.

Earl Winterton: Would the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to obtain this information, because, while it is very important that we should not distract the attention of the House from the suffering of puppies and pussies in pet shops, it is equally important that the House should take an interest in the torture of children?

Mr. Ede: May I explain the difficulty about providing this information? During the period to which the noble Lord alluded in the first part of his Question, there were 12,000 convictions—and I am not suggesting that that is a number which can be regarded otherwise than with detestation. The information which he seeks is about the permanent impairment of the children which has taken place, and that would not be recorded even where a conviction was recorded by the court.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in spite of publicity there is no appreciable decrease in the number of convictions for cruelty and neglect of children?

Mr. Ede: The statistics do not bear that out. Over a period of years the drop in the number of prosecutions and convictions is substantial.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider producing a statement in a different form? I cannot raise it on this Question, but it is very important that the House should be aware of the situation.

Mr. Ede: I will endeavour to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Bomb Disposal

Mr. Henry Hopkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to secure the enrolment of ex-bomb disposal officers and other personnel as instructors in the Civil Defence Corps.

Mr. de Freitas: None, Sir. Bomb disposal is not at present a responsibility of the Civil Defence organisation.

Underground Shelters

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the steps

which are being taken in the United States of America to build atomic bomb shelters and to combine them with underground garages; and what is the present policy with regard to the provision of air-raid shelters in this country in connection with defence schemes.

Mr. de Freitas: The construction of underground car parks which would serve as shelters if need arose has been considered both in the United States and here. As regards the general question of shelter provision in this country, local authorities were asked last December to make a survey to determine their shelter needs. The survey is not due to be completed until later in the year, and at the moment I cannot add to the full statement which my right hon. Friend made on 9th November.

Mr. Janner: Will my hon. Friend consult with his colleagues to see that when licences are given for underground garages or similar buildings provision is made for shelter? Further, can my hon. Friend say how far this matter has proceeded in the United States?

Mr. de Freitas: To the first question the answer is that I will do so. As to the second, as far as I know, although there has been a great deal of discussion in the newspapers and elsewhere, none of these underground car parks has been begun in the United States.

Earl Winterton: In view of the very elaborate precautions which were taken before the last war, to which some of us were privy in our official capacities, would the hon. Gentleman tell the House what liaison there is between his Department and the corresponding department of the United States Government from the point of view of discussing the precautions which are taken in both countries?

Mr. de Freitas: The very closest indeed. My right hon. Friend and I, only a few weeks ago, saw the United States' Federal Director; and we are in full touch through our experts.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In these conversations with the United States authorities will my hon. Friend raise the question of pooling the materials likely to be required, because we shall be in greater danger from atomic weapons?

Mr. Duncan Sandys: Have the Government yet decided upon the type of household shelter which would be issued in the event of hostilities——

Mr. Ellis Smith: We want the houses first.

Mr. Sandys: —and, if so, whether production arrangements have yet been made?

Mr. de Freitas: That is now being considered.

Mr. Sandys: Has nothing been decided?

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTORISTS, WALES (CONVICTIONS)

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of motoring cases in Wales in which the driver was proved to be under the influence of drink during the years 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950, respectively.

Mr. Ede: The numbers of offences of driving or being in charge of a motor car while under the influence of drink or a drug dealt with by prosecution in Wales were: in 1947, 142; in 1948, 128; in 1949, 134; in 1950, 186. Statistics of findings of guilt are not kept on a geographical basis and I regret that I am, therefore, unable to say in how many of these cases the charge was proved.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the avoidable tragedies which are caused by motorists driving under the influence of drink, will the Home Secretary reconsider the introduction of legislation to prevent convicted persons from ever having their licences renewed?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think we must recognise that there are degrees, even in this type of offence, serious as it is, and to impose that as an unavoidable penalty might involve us in doing injustice in certain cases.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Do not the statistics for 1950 show an alarming increase and is it not reflected very similarly in the figures for England?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I regret to say that that is so. There was another Question on the Paper today dealing with the

problem of drunkenness, but the hon. was not here and I was not able to answer it.

Mr. James Hudson: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the collection of statistics on these convictions for motoring offences sufficiently takes into account the element of drunkenness as a cause of those offences? Is there not a need for reconsideration of the way in which statistics are compiled?

Mr. Ede: The statistics I have given to the House today relate to prosecutions of persons who were alleged by the prosecution to be so far under the influence of drink or drugs as to be incapable of driving a car.

Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many sober people were convicted of driving dangerously?

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Can my right hon. Friend say in what proportion of the cases he has mentioned, in which drunkenness has been found, disqualification was not imposed?

Mr. Ede: Not without notice.

Mr. Thomas: In view of the danger to life and limb and to the number of people of whom we read being injured through people selfishly driving a car while under the influence of drink, will the Minister consider introducing heavier penalties than are at present enforced?

Mr. Ede: The penalty which can be imposed in these cases is very heavy and includes suspension of the driving licence for life.

Mr. Remnant: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the licensed trade are equally alarmed by this increase and are making their own investigations, and that they would be willing to co-operate with him?

PRISONS (HYGIENE)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is his intention to modernise the inadequate sanitation of the prisons.

Mr. Ede: Although the prisons in England and Wales are overcrowded, I do not accept the implication that the sanitary facilities in the prisons are in general


inadequate for health and hygiene. The existing facilities are being steadily brought up to modern standards, where necessary, but no radical change in the type of facilities provided is contemplated.

Mr. Greenwood: Would my right hon. Friend look especially at places where it is well-known that overcrowding exists at present, to see whether special action can be taken there?

Mr. Ede: We do all we can to minimise the detrimental effects of overcrowding.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: To verify the accuracy of representations I have made to my right hon. Friend on the subject previously, will he go to Brixton Prison, where I am sure he will be warmly welcomed?

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to provide adequate facilities for ablution in the prisons.

Mr. Ede: The ablution facilities in the prisons in England and Wales are not ideal, but can hardly be described as inadequate. Each prisoner has a water jug and wash basin in his cell, with soap, brush, and towel; he is allowed to have a hot bath, weekly, and the arrangements for washing in the workshops are being steadily improved.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXICABS, LONDON (REGULATIONS)

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider making a regulation that in certain busy streets, at certain busy hours, such as St. James's Street in the middle of the day, taxi drivers may be permitted to set down their fares opposite their destination, thus reducing a volume of turning traffic which at present entirely chokes transit.

Mr. Ede: The general position under the existing law is that the driver of a taxicab is required to take the hirer to the place to which he wishes to go. There is, however, nothing to prevent the driver setting down the hirer opposite his destination, if he does not object. On the information before me, I do not think

that a regulation on the lines suggested would be justified.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is sufficiently well known among taxi drivers that they are entitled to set down their fares opposite the destination if they wish and if the fares are quite willing?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir, but I understand that it is the desire of the driver that he should part with his fare on reasonably good mutual relations.

Mr. Keeling: Would it not be simpler to prohibit turning in specified two-way streets? It is already illegal in all one-way streets.

Oral Answers to Questions — TORTOISES (CRUELTY)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the agreement which exists among the scientific experts concerned that cruelty is involved when tortoises are subjected to transport during their hibernating season, he will take steps to introduce legislation to prevent tortoises being brought into this country between 1st September and 30th April.

Mr. Ede: I can hold out no hope of the Government introducing legislation on this subject at the present time. Under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, proceedings can be taken against a person for causing unnecessary suffering to tortoises.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Hospital Appliances

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Minister of Health (1) why doctors at a disclaimed hospital who are allowed to prescribe surgical appliances for patients sent to that hospital by the regional board under contractual arrangements are not allowed to prescribe the same surgical appliances for other patients;
(2) why a patient at a disclaimed hospital who is in need of a surgical appliance immediately and is not well enough to visit a National Health Service hospital, notwithstanding that he is a


contributor to the National Health Service, is compelled to buy the surgical appliance at his own expense.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Marquand): The reason is that the Health Service must obviously concern itself only with Health Service patients and cannot undertake to provide hospital appliances to those who elect to seek their hospital treatment outside the service. I would also remind the hon. Member that the benefits of the service do not depend on contribution.

Sir W. Wakefield: Was not it promised when the National Health Service was introduced that patients could use it either wholly or in part? Is it not most unfair that, when there are two classes of patients in a hospital, patients of one class, needing the same appliances in the same hospital for the same illness as those of the other, and attended by the same doctors, are not allowed the use of those appliances, especially if they are too ill to go to another hospital? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that is most unfair? Ought he not to put that right?

Mr. Marquand: The patient in these cases chooses to go to the disclaimed hospital, and I cannot arrange for the expenditure of money provided by the Exchequer on the prescription of a doctor who, in respect of that patient, is in no way responsible to the Minister.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: Is not this practice on the part of the right hon. Gentleman both inconsistent and unjust? Is it not a very plain submission to the dictates of administrative convenience and rule of thumb bureaucracy? What has become of the professed policy of fair shares for all?

Mr. Marquand: It is submission to the doctrine of the control by Parliament of expenditure.

Dr. Hill: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that in the circumstances described in the Question a disclaimed hospital is deemed to be necessary for the purpose of treating National Health Service patients because a contract has been entered into for the purpose? Does that not raise a special consideration, entitling all persons treated in that hospital to be treated alike?

Mr. Marquand: It entitles those persons being treated there under contractual arrangements with the regional hospital board, and not anybody else.

Mental Defectives

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Health the total number of mentally defective persons at present awaiting vacancies in institutions; to what extent this number is increasing; and what steps are being taken to deal with this matter.

Mr. Marquand: According to returns made by local health authorities on 1st January, 1951, there were 5,316 mental defectives awaiting admission to institutions. There is no reason to think that the proportion of mental defectives is increasing, but the number increases yearly with the population. Provision for these patients receives high priority in the hospital service, within the limits of capital investment and staff available.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say when those urgently in need of institutional care will receive it?

Mr. Marquand: I should not like to make a forecast, but we are doing all we can, and the regional hospital boards are being asked to devote special attention to this difficult problem.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the Minister aware that 64 people of low grade mental deficiency——

Sir Waldron Smithers: On the Government Front Bench.

Mrs. Braddock: —are waiting at home in the Liverpool area, and that only one vacancy has been offered by the regional board in 12 months? These cases are usually dangerous cases in the home, and are causing great concern to parents and others who look after them.

Mr. Marquand: I am sure that my hon. Friend will use her influence with the regional board to see that they do all they can in the matter.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the reasons why there are now more mental defectives and more certified lunatics in the country than there were before the Socialist Government came into power?

Mr. Marquand: I have already said that, unfortunately, the proportion remains roughly constant and that when the total population increases the number of mental defectives increases, too.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is it possible for the inmates to resign if they feel so disposed?

Spectacles

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Health why the letters "N.H." are being stamped on spectacle frames in two places at an extra cost of 1s. 6d.; and if he will give instructions to stop this expenditure.

Mr. Marquand: The trade mark is to ensure the quality of the spectacles and is stamped on the two parts which are often made and sold separately. I am advised that the cost of stamping is negligible.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the National Health Service provides at the moment for spectacle frame numbers 311, 321, 411 and 421 which are unsuitable for agricultural workers and very young children; and if he will make available heavy gauge metal frames in these circumstances which, by reducing breakages, will save expense.

Mr. Marquand: I am advised that these frames—and four nickel frames also available—are quite suitable for agricultural workers. They are not supplied to children, for whom a special hardwearing range is provided. I do not agree that an extension of the existing range is necessary.

Mr. Marshall: If I send the Minister information will he examine the position again so far as agricultural workers are concerned?

Mr. Marquand: I will be glad to look into anything which the hon. Gentleman has to send me, but my advice is that the new heavier type frames would require a change in the manufacturing process, which would be unjustifiably expensive.

Personal Cases

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Health when a bed in a sanatorium will be provided for Mr. L. Riley, Queslett

Road, Streetly, a tuberculosis patient and an ex-Service man.

Mr. Marquand: I am informed that he was admitted to Prestwood Sanatorium on 18th April.

Mr. Snow: While thanking the Minister for that answer, may I ask whether he is aware that from 1st March to 3rd April the consultant to the hospital group in question informed me indirectly that no single male bed for a male T.B. patient was made available?

Mr. Marquand: I understand they were trying their best to get this patient into Papworth, but were unable to find a vacancy there at the time.

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied with the administration of the National Health Ser vice in the case of Mr. H. Thompson, 15, Allton Avenue, Mile Oak, Staffordshire, on 9th March, when he trapped his hand while at work at the Kingsbury 7 ft. Unit and eventually received treatment at Birmingham Accident Hospital, after being referred from Tamworth, with the consequent delay.

Mr. Marquand: I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend when they are complete.

Mr. Snow: Meantime, is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to a report I received from the miners' agent at Tam-worth, my constituent, who was injured at the pit at 12.30 p.m. on 9th March, went to the Tamworth Hospital at 2 p.m., that there was no surgeon available, and that having received treatment at Birmingham Accident Hospital at 8.15 that night, still wearing his wet pit clothes, and with no money, he asked for an ambulance to take him back to Tamworth, a considerable distance, and was told that he had got legs? Does my righ hon. Friend think that this is the right sort of treatment to give a miner?

Mr. Marquand: I cannot comment on that, or necessarily accept all my hon. Friend's statements, until I have completed my inquiries.

Eye Services, Tamworth

Mr. Snow: asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied with the provision of eye specialist services for miners in the


Tamworth, Staffordshire, district, in view of the distances to be travelled and the service provided for adjacent mining districts.

Mr. Marquand: This district must necessarily rely partly on the comprehensive consultant services provided in Birmingham itself, but I understand the regional hospital board is now reviewing the facilities available there and in other districts.

Mr. Snow: While that is satisfactory as far as it goes, in view of the fact that this is an important mining district should there not be an eye consultant more easily available than at Birmingham, since the original trip to Birmingham and the subsequent treatment means a great loss of wages to the man and of output to the pit?

Health Centres

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health (1) how many comprehensive health centres have been provided since July, 1948; and how many are now under construction either by new building or adaptation;
(2) how many centres for group practice have been provided since July, 1948; and how many are now under construction either by new building or adaptation.

Mr. Marquand: Nine premises taken over when the National Health Service began are being administered as health centres for groups of doctors and other services. One large centre is under construction, and tenders for two smaller ones have been invited.

Mr. Hastings: Would my right hon. Friend not regard it as dangerous if, when the time came to make it possible to build health centres and centres for group practice, there was no more experience of them than his answer suggests will be possible?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. As I said in the debate on the National Health Service Bill the other day, I have every sympathy with this proposal, and I intend to encourage, where suitable conditions which I then described are available, the establishment of further group centres of this kind.

Group Practice

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health why he has refused the London County Council permission to provide at the Hampstead Health Institute a centre for group practice; and how far it is now his policy only to permit local authorities to make provision for group practice in under-doctored areas.

Mr. Marquand: In general I want to see some experiments in provision for group practice in suitable areas, but this area is already very well supplied with doctors and surgeries.

Mr. Hastings: Are there any conditions under which my right hon. Friend will permit centres for group practice to be built or adapted; and if so, what?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. There are two centres out to tender at the moment, one in Bristol and one in Farringdon. There are other proposals under consideration. In this case it was understood that the group of doctors wishing to practice at the centre intended to continue their existing practice at their own private surgeries, and to seek new patients for their practice at the health centre.

Mr. Henry Brooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what the people in that part of Hampstead most want is not so much a health centre for group practice as the removal of the Government's present restriction on housing permits?

Foreign Dentists (Qualifications)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Health what steps are now being taken to utilise the services of experienced foreign dentists in this country who have been naturalised; what discussions have taken place with the Dental Board on this subject; and with what result.

Mr. Marquand: The Government intend at a convenient opportunity to introduce a Bill which will include proposals for new methods of assessing the qualifications of foreign-trained dentists.

Mr. Awbery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a small number of foreign dentists who have been in this country for about 10 or 12 years, who have become naturalised, and who have been fully qualified to practise dental


surgery for many years; and will he act as speedily as possible to bring them into the scheme?

Mr. Marquand: I am well a ware of the problem, and I have given it a good deal of personal attention. I am satisfied that within the existing law all that can be done has been done.

Mr. Janner: Can my right hon. Friend say when the Bill is likely to be introduced? This is a very pressing matter, particularly in view of the shortage of dentists at present, and the fact that these men are capable of carrying out this particular work. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of them have already been employed, but are now prevented from carrying on dental surgery?

Mr. Marquand: My hon. Friend knows that I cannot say when a particular piece of legislation will be introduced.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Can the Minister say whether there will be a dozen foreigners affected, or 100 or 1,000?

Mr. Marquand: So far as I am aware, the number now in this country is a good deal fewer than 100.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In view of the fact that there is a general shortage of dental practitioners, especially in the school dental service, does not my right hon. Friend consider that some way out of this unjust dilemma might be found by allocating these people to the school dental service, where perhaps they would be more welcome than if they are competing elsewhere?

Mr. Marquand: I cannot allocate, nor can my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education allocate, to the school dental service personnel who are not qualified under the law to practise dentistry.

Earl Winterton: Is the Minister aware that many of these dentists were brought over here under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Committee for Refugees, of which I was at the time Chairman? Many of them have brilliant qualifications in their own country and is it not unfortunate that in this country there is certain professional feeling against foreign dentists practising here, even though they may be just as efficient as British dentists?

Mr. Marquand: I can assure the noble Lord and my hon. Friends, without any qualification whatever, that I have the greatest sympathy with their point of view in this matter.

Mr. Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the standard of qualifications in other countries is in some cases considerably below our own; and will he take every precaution to ensure that the standard of work by dental surgeons is not reduced?

Mr. Awbery: Will my right hon. Friend bring to the attention of the Dental Board the feeling of the Members of the House on this subject?

Tuberculosis

Mr. Hopkinson: asked the Minister of Health whether he will issue directions to regional hospital boards to take steps to arrange that tuberculosis should be made part of the general nursing training.

Mr. Marquand: I am not in a position to give directions in this matter, but I am encouraging hospital authorities to extend the practice of giving general student nurses some experience in tuberculosis nursing.

Mr. Messer: Is it not a fact that the training is determined by the General Nursing Council and not by the regional hospital boards?

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir, that is so. That is why I am not able to give a direction but, as my hon. Friend knows, I have asked the regional hospital boards to help in the matter.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: asked the Minister of Health what is the average delay in the developing and production of X-ray photographs in suspected tuberculosis cases; whether delays of up to two months are common; and whether he proposes to take any steps to expedite the service.

Mr. Marquand: The films used in mass miniature radiography are processed forthwith. I have no information of the average time taken for developing other X-ray photographs, but will be glad to inquire into any case of difficulty which the hon. Member has in mind.

Hearing Aids

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Health how many National Health hearing aids have been returned by their recipients as unsuitable.

Mr. Marquand: Precise figures are not available but the number is estimated at 2,000.

Sir T. Moore: As the Ministry's instruments are unsuitable to many and cumbersome to the majority to wear, would the right hon. Gentleman consider scrapping the National Health issue and, say, making a grant to the private manufacturers, who have a wide range of deaf aids which suit many types of deafness?

Mr. Marquand: No, Sir, I have no intention of changing well-established policy in this matter.

Sir T. Moore: Would the Minister answer the first part of my supplementary question?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would the Minister tell us the percentage of deaf aids returned?

Mr. Marquand: The percentage returned as unsuitable is something just over 1 per cent.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not a fact that the Medresco hearing aid is considered to be the very best by all those competent to judge?

Mr. Profumo: Can the Minister say in how many of these cases the return was due to the fact that in the first place bone conduction hearing aids should have been issued to the patients; and can he say anything about the progressive development of this sort of hearing aid for the whole scheme?

Mr. Marquand: That is another question.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Health why he has instructed the United Cardiff Hospitals Committee that the supply of hearing aids must be limited to 120 a month in view of the long waiting list of people urgently requiring the use of these aids.

Mr. Marquand: I have recently reviewed the allocation of aids to distribution centres, taking into account the waiting lists and other factors. Each will

in future receive a fair share of the aids available for distribution.

Mr. Thomas: Am I to assume from my right hon. Friend's reply that the figure of 124 is unchanged, because, if so, that will mean a wait of over four years for people to get their hearing aids, which are not a luxury but a necessity?

Mr. Marquand: My information is that Cardiff should get at least 124 every four weeks and, if the situation improves, may get as many as 148 every four weeks. I do not need to remind my hon. Friend that I would do nothing unfair to Cardiff.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. T. J. Cock, St. Austell, who was recommended for a hearing aid after medical examination on the 1st January, 1949, and is still awaiting delivery of the instrument; and what explanation he can give for this delay;
(2) whether his attention has been called to the case of Mrs. F. J. Rowe. Truro, who was recommended for a hearing aid on 15th December, 1948, was not interviewed and tested until 22nd May, 1950, and is still awaiting delivery of the instrument; and what is the explanation of this delay.

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. The delay in both instances is due to the large accumulated demand and neither patient appears to have any special claim to priority.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister think that a delay of 27 or 28 months is reasonable, and could not something be done to expedite the matter?

Mr. Marquand: It was precisely because I thought that the waiting lists in the West of England were unduly long that I revised the allocation, and, in consequence, did something slightly to the detriment of Cardiff.

Mr. G. P. Stevens: asked the Minister of Health what steps he has recently taken to speed up the production and delivery of hearing aids.

Mr. Marquand: I am glad to say that production and delivery of new aids are increasing year by year in spite of material shortages and other difficulties.

Mr. Stevens: As these very lengthy waiting lists are not confined to Cardiff and Truro, but generally throughout the country, cannot the Minister do something to speed up production still further?

Mr. Marquand: My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and his Department are doing what they can in this matter. The monthly rate of production in 1949–50 was 6,400; in 1950–51, 7,750 and this year, to date, 8,750.

Pay Beds

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Health how many beds are reserved for paying patients in hospitals; and what proportion this represents of the total number of beds.

Mr. Marquand: About 6,875 pay beds, or 1½ per cent. of the total number of staffed beds, are set aside at present under Section 5 of the National Health Service Act, 1946.

Mr. Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend have another look at this matter, in view of the many complaints of people urgently requiring treatment who are debarred from admission to hospital because of the number of paying patients?

Mr. Marquand: I think that my hon. Friend is mistaken. Pay beds are set aside but are not reserved. If they are required urgently on medical grounds for patients for whom other accommodation is not available, no charge is made.

Foreign Visitors (Medical Treatment)

Captain Ryder: asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the proposed charges that are now to be made on dentures and glasses, he will cease free medical treatment to those visitors from foreign countries with which we have still no reciprocal agreement.

Mr. Marquand: No.

Captain Ryder: If charges are to be made is it not reasonable to try to effect economies in respect of foreigners who are visiting this country?

Mr. Marquand: These charges will, of course, apply to foreigners as well as to everyone else.

Mr. Keeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what was the point of taking

powers in the 1949 Act to charge visitors to this country, if they were not to be used?

Mr. Marquand: Because since then the Secretary of State for the Home Department has been able, by various ways and means to restrain foreigners from coming to this country deliberately to receive treatment.

Commander Noble: Can the Minister give an estimate of the total yearly cost of the charges in respect of foreign visitors?

Mr. Marquand: I have answered that question more than once already. I cannot give the exact figure from memory, but it is almost negligible.

Mrs. Jean Mann: As it is intimated that there are already over a million people coming to Britain for the Festival, has my right hon. Friend estimated the possible increase in the health budget?

Mr. Marquand: The figure will still be negligible. I hope that, as I have said before, our cousins coming from the Dominions and the Colonies will receive a warm welcome in every direction.

Captain Ryder: Would we not be more likely to obtain reciprocal facilities if we made a charge now?

Mr. Marquand: If hon. Members can discover any way of finding out whether a person who requires treatment is a foreigner without imposing vexatious and unnecessary questions on British nationals and imposing extra clerical work on doctors, I shall be pleased to hear of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL (EMPLOYEES)

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Durham County Council's decision to cease questioning teachers as to whether they are members of their appropriate unions, he will now take steps to ensure the adoption of a similar attitude with regard to other employees of the council.

Mr. Ede: I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no information that similar questions are put to other employees, but Ministers are concerned to intervene in the actions


of local authorities only where these actions may endanger the efficiency of services for which the Ministers have responsibility.

Miss Ward: Would the right hon. Gentleman, if he has not the information, which is extremely surprising, take the trouble, in the interests of freedom, to find out? Are we to understand that freedom depends on trade unionism stimulating the Government to action rather than the Government giving leadership in the application of freedom to the subject?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. It is also important that there should be no interference with the reasonable freedom of local authorities.

Sir W. Smithers: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the subversive activities of Councillor E. F. Peart, of Thornley, who is still urging the Durham County Council to continue the closed shop policy?

Mr. Ede: We are now getting a very clear idea of freedom.

Mr. Blyton: Will my right hon. Friend, now that the Durham position has been happily settled, take action against the Tory dominated Council of Middlesex, which asks questions about the political faith of any teacher applying for a position?

Mr. Ede: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has that matter under consideration.

Mr. Awbery: Will my right hon. Friend notify local authorities that they are still at liberty to urge their employees to join the appropriate trade union that caters for their industry, and point out that it is contrary to British custom and tradition for a man to accept privileges for which he does not carry any responsibility?

Mr. Ede: I do not think that the trade unions require employers to urge people to join unions.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that no one may be compelled to belong to an association?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Feedingstuffs

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is satisfied that there will be a sufficient quantity of feeding-stuffs available this year for the farmers to reach the target set by him or for the food required by the nation.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The best estimate we can make of the rationed feedingstuffs available in the coming 12 months was given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in a supplementary reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on 22nd March. Provided that our own crops this year are not unduly small these rationed supplies should enable current objectives to be reached.

Mr. Bossom: Would the Minister consult the National Farmers' Union, particularly in Kent, because they are not at all convinced that they will be able to reach the target which has been set them?

Mr. Williams: I am sure that the hon. Member is aware that we are in constant consultation with the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In view of the many qualifications in the right hon. Gentleman's reply and the doubt that the feedingstuffs can be obtained, will he obtain reserve feedingstuffs in case of need?

Mr. Williams: I do not think that there was any qualification in my reply, except about the weather.

Farmers (Advice)

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture, in view of the prolonged wintry conditions hampering normal cultivation, what special steps he is taking to see that all farmers needing assistance or advice obtain it so that the greatest possible acreage is cropped with a suitable crop this year.

Mr. T. Williams: Before the recent welcome improvement in the weather I had invited chairmen of county agricultural executive committees to convene, urgently, meetings with their respective


county branches of the N.F.U., representatives of the local seed trade and of the local papers, to review the situation and to enlist the co-operation of the provincial Press in passing on to farmers up-to-date advice on the most suitable late sowing crops for each district, where seeding has been seriously delayed. Where necessary, action of this kind has been taken, with the helpful co-operation of all concerned. I am glad to say that reports from all over the country indicate that farmers and their workers are making the most strenuous efforts to ensure that the maximum advantage is now taken of the change in conditions.

Smallholdings

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made in providing additional smallholdings under the Agriculture Act, 1947; and how many approved applicants are now on the waiting lists of county and borough councils.

Mr. T. Williams: By 21st April, 1951, 62 schemes had been approved, providing for 135 new holdings on 6,352 acres. At the end of 1950, which is the latest date for which I have information, there were on the waiting lists 4,094 approved applicants entitled to preference.

Mr. Dye: In view of the falling off in the number of skilled farm workers employed on farms, is it not important to speed up the efforts to provide smallholdings for these skilled workers, so as to encourage them to remain on the land?

Mr. Williams: I agree with my hon. Friend. He will be aware that for quite a time housing was priority No. 1, but more recently schemes have been approved at a more rapid rate than was the case a few years ago.

Mr. Turton: Is housing still priority No. 1?

Mr. Williams: Yes, in rural as well as urban areas.

Grain (Drying and Storage)

Mr. Hopkinson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, under their terms of reference, the Working Party on Grain Drying and Storage are empowered to

consider the provision of financial assistance towards the installation of additional drying and storage facilities.

Mr. T. Williams: The terms of reference of the Working Party are very wide, and will not debar them from considering and making recommendations about this matter.

Carrot Seed (Import Licence)

Mr. Braine: asked the Minister of Agriculture what were the reasons for the delay in authorising the issue of an import licence for carrot seed to Harts Seed Growing Establishment, Rayleigh, Essex.

Mr. T. Williams: The delay, which I regret, in advising the Board of Trade not to issue an import licence for carrot seed required by the firm mentioned was due, in part, to an oversight and, in part, to the need to obtain further details from the applicants.

Mr. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay was of some 10 weeks' duration and could he impress upon the President of the Board of Trade the necessity of avoiding delays in this kind of transaction?

Mr. Williams: If I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that the delay was 10 weeks. As a matter of fact, the original request from the firm was on 5th February, 1951, and was, unfortunately, not dealt with until 28th February, which was scarcely 10 weeks.

Mr. Braine: But the licence which, after all, is the important thing, was not issued until some 10 weeks later.

Mr. Williams: Yes, but this firm asked for varieties of carrot seed. We wanted to know exactly which of them was really necessary, since there were substantial home stocks of the carrot seed required by the firm.

Poultry Stocks

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the in creasing slaughter of poultry by poultry keepers in many parts of the country, consequent on the high cost of feeding- stuffs and the uneconomic price obtained for eggs, he will now consider taking action to ensure that the number of birds kept in Great Britain will not decline by more than 20 per cent. in 1951 as com pared with 1950.

Mr. T. Williams: Some poultry keepers are now apparently slaughtering a number of the laying birds, which they would otherwise have kept until the late summer, because of the present high prices for table poultry. They are also appreciating that it is more profitable to concentrate their energies and the available supplies of feedingstuffs on increased winter production of eggs. I do not expect any marked change in the total poultry population, and the second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the disastrous consequences of Government policy, in not recouping poultry keepers for the increased cost of production? Surely we want every egg we can get

Mr. Williams: What I am sure about is that according to the March return we have two million more poultry in England than we had in 1950.

Mr. Dye: Is it not a fact that in recent weeks there has been a falling off in the number of eggs that have been coming to the collecting centres? Is it not more important that we should maintain the supply of fresh eggs for home consumption?

Mr. Williams: I agree, but as my hon. Friend is aware the weather will have had something to do with that.

Mr. De la Bère: Thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Nabarro: Can the right hon. Gentleman anticipate any increase in the ration of one egg per person per week, to which the unfortunate consumer was doomed last winter?

Mr. Williams: With great confidence.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD RESERVES

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

SIR WALDRON SMITHERS: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many ounces of fine gold there are at present in Great Britain; and where they are stored.

Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. Would it not be dangerous to let the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) have this information?

Mr. W, J. Taylor: He has not got it yet.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The reply is: It would not be in the public interest to give details of the disposition of our gold holdings.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Government side of the House to keep quiet for a few moments while the Financial Secretary repeats his answer, because I did not hear it?

Mr. Jay: I said that it would not be in the public interest to give the hon. Member the information.

Sir W. Smithers: Are the Government taking immediate steps to mint all this gold into sovereigns and put it into circulation, so that we can have sound money instead of a lot of Socialist paper?

Sir H. Williams: Can the Financial Secretary say why the public should not know what are our reserves of gold and dollars? What is the ground for his statement?

Mr. Jay: I am not declining to give the House the actual total of our gold and dollar reserves. They are published every three months. What would be contrary to the public interest is to say where they are located.

Mr. Fernyhough: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that his reply was intended as a reflection upon the character of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir, I should have given the same reply to any hon. or right hon. Member.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the hon. Gentleman say—never mind where it is stored—what is the amount of gold already in this country? He said he would.

Mr. Jay: That is another question, but the total at the end of March, 1951, was £1,342 million.

Mr. W. J. Taylor: On a point of order. Is it in order, Sir, for the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) to cast aspersions on the character of my hon.


Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)? Should he not be called upon to withdraw?

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: There has been so much noise that I have heard nothing. I have not even heard the hon. Gentleman's question.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask you not to worry, Mr. Speaker? I take it whence it comes.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 30TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Coal Industry Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

Report and Third Reading of the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill.

TUESDAY, 1ST MAY—Supply (14th Allotted Day), Committee.

Debate on raw materials.

WEDNESDAY, 2ND MAY—Committee stage of the National Health Service Bill.

THURSDAY, 3RD MAY—Second Reading of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

FRIDAY, 4TH MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.

Mr. Eden: As regards Tuesday's business, we should like to table a Motion. I hope it will be ageeable for us to take Supply formally, as we have done on other occasions, and allow a debate to take place on the Motion.

Mr. Ede: It is an Opposition day and we are quite willing that it should be arranged to suit their convenience.

Mr. H. Hynd: With regard to Friday, as the Leader of the House will be aware that all hon. Members have been invited

to participate in the Royal Opening of the South Bank Exhibition on that date, has he considered adjourning the sitting of the House for that occasion and providing another day for Private Members' Bills?

Mr. Ede: We had some conversations about that but we understood that there were a large number of hon. Members who would have objected to that course being followed.

Mr. Duncan Sandys: Can the Leader of the House say when the Government will take the Bill to indemnify them for the overspending of Festival Gardens Ltd.? Would it not be desirable to get this matter over before the official opening of the Exhibition?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I do not think it would be a very good thing to take it in the week when the opening takes place.

Mr. George Thomas: Will the Leader of the House indicate when the Government hope to fortify themselves and their consultations with the Dominions on the question of the Far East ex-prisoners of war by allowing the House to debate the matter and give its opinion?

Mr. Ede: The consultations are going on and we understand that a Supply Day will be allocated to the subject. We are quite willing to have conversations now about when that should be.

Mr. Eden: To revert to the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to take the Bill next week, but can he give any indication when the Bill will be taken? It has been put off now week by week, and it is not a satisfactory position that this money should be spent without the authority of the House.

Mr. Ede: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works informs me that he is expecting the report to which we have previously alluded any day now and we should hope to take the Bill as soon after that as possible.

Mr. Blackburn: With reference to the Motion that the late right hon. Ernest Bevin be buried in Westminster Abbey, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will take the sense of the House through the main political parties in order to discover


whether, in view of the great services of the right hon. Gentleman not only to this country but to all humanity, it would be right that he should be buried in Westminster Abbey? Would it not be a good thing for the trade union movement to have for the first time a representative accorded the great national honour of being buried in Westminster Abbey?

Mr. Ede: This is a very delicate matter and I do not think it can usefully be discussed here. After all, the wishes of the family have to be considered.

Air Commodore Harvey: Reverting to the Festival of Britain, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the opening in 1851 the House adjourned for two hours?

Mr. Ede: As far as my hon. Friends are concerned, we are quite willing to reach any accommodation which is suggested to enable a substantial number of hon. Members who wish to attend to go there.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can the Leader of the House give us any idea when we can anticipate having a debate on the Beveridge Committee Report on the B.B.C.?

Mr. Ede: I am afraid that it will not be just yet.

Mr. Grimond: Arising out of the question by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas), will the Leader of the House bear in mind that the claim of the Far Eastern ex-prisoners-of-war is becoming more and more urgent and perhaps particularly urgent in view of the consultations with the Dominions on the matter?

Mr. Ede: The conversations are being carried on and I have intimated that if a day can be found we shall be ready to have it discussed.

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to state the date of the Whitsuntide Recess in view of the necessity for booking cabins and seats in aeroplanes?

Mr. Ede: I hope to be able to make an announcement on that very shortly

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: I wish to ask your advice, Mr. Speaker, about the case of two men dismissed under the excuse of redundancies by a nationalised industry, British Overseas Airways Corporation. From all the evidence I have, I believe the real cause of the dismissal to be that they made contact with me as a Member of Parliament and gave me some evidence.
I wish to ask your advice as to whether or not a question of Privilege is involved here. It seems that an important question of principle is involved in any case. During the war, I recall, the House was rightly jealous of its privilege and zealous in exposing cases where any attempt was made to influence members of the Armed Forces or discourage them from writing to or seeing their Members of Parliament if there were personal matters or matters of national interest which they felt should be brought to the notice of their Members. Presumably it is no less important now that it should be widely known that public servants or employees of nationalised industries have an overriding right to bring matters to the attention of their Members of Parliament especially if matters of national interest, waste or inefficiancy are involved which cannot satisfactorily be dealt with through other channels.
The case on which I seek your guidance is, very briefly this. These two men were employed in the British Overseas Airways Corporation signals section. One joined after active service in the Royal Air Force as a member of an aircrew. The other had joined the Corporation much earlier and had risen to a responsible position. This man, in the course of his signals duties, realised the need for an international signals organisation to be formed for civil airline operators after the war. His proposals were later adopted, and International Aeradio Ltd. was formed. He was not asked to join the new organisation, but remained with British Overseas Airways Corporation while its signals organisation was gradually absorbed by International Aeradio Ltd. Eventually, this man and his ex-Royal Air Force colleague were dismissed as redundant while others with less experience were recruited by International Aeradio Ltd.
Earlier, these two men had disclosed to me what appeared to be irrefutable evidence that International Aeradio Ltd. was going the wrong way. The international aspect of International Aeradio Ltd. was being lost because those who had, by influence it seems, stepped into the top positions in International Aeradio Ltd. had not the experience and vision to carry through the original conception. Secondly, International Aeradio Ltd. had become an inefficient and badly controlled organisation, and had built up a bureaucratic rather than a competent service.
This information was given by me to the responsible Ministry, the Ministry of Civil Aviation. After an investigation by the Ministry had been carried out, the case made by these two men was admitted and proved, and changes in the organisation of International Aeradio Ltd. took place. During the investigation it appears to have become known to British Overseas Airways Corporation and International Aeradio Ltd. that it was the evidence of these two men which had caused the inquiry to be held. The effect of their exposure of these defects made to me, I believe, in the national interest cost these men their jobs.
This was caused by the fact that the Technical Director of British Overseas Airways Corporation, Sir Victor Tait, who was therefore, in effect, the employer of these two men, was also the Chairman of International Aeradio Ltd. He therefore had the power of life or death over the employment of these men in both British Overseas Airways Corporation and International Aeradio Ltd. As they had exposed the inefficiency of International Aeradio Ltd., which reflected also in some degree on the competence of the Chairman, these men have, in fact, been penalised.
I would ask you, Sir, if a prima facie case of Privilege is involved here, because I believe there are indications that this type of case is multiplying, that people employed in nationalised industries and Government organisations are being prevented, or discouraged, from giving information to hon. Members of the House which, rightly, they should receive—and without which hon. Members cannot fulfil their duties in protecting the public interest—because these employees are becoming more and more afraid of

reprisals and of the risk of losing their jobs.
Although the incidents in this case have occurred over a protracted period, I have been making representations for some time now for these particular injustices to be put right. But I learned only yesterday from the Ministry of Civil Aviation that they hold out no hope of justice being done. I believe that it is only at this point that the Privilege of the House has been impugned. I have, therefore, raised the question of Privilege at the earliest opportunity by bringing it to your notice today, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but Privilege cannot extend to a case of that kind. This, no doubt, may be a very desirable matter to discuss in debate on, let us say, the Vote of the Ministry of Civil Aviation, but no Parliamentary Privilege is actually involved therein. Supposing the hon. Member had been prevented from carrying out his Parliamentary duties in any way, then Privilege would have been affected, but that is not the case and therefore I must rule that there is no prima facie case of Privilege.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is this not one of the cases, of which we have had three or four in recent times, in which the House has been concerned with the relationship between members of the public or constituents who write to hon. Members in confidence about matters which they think important? Because the House has decided—admittedly by a narrow Vote—that matters of that kind are not to be sent in the ordinary way to the Committee of Privileges, is there any way in which the House might investigate this matter, which is of great public importance, so that the doubts about it may be cleared up one way or the other?

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree with the hon. Member about its not feeing a matter of Privilege—it is a matter for the Government—but an hon. Member can always put down a Motion for a Select Committee of Inquiry into the matter. That has been done within my knowledge in several cases of that kind. That seems to me, in a case like this, to be the proper course.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would it be in order then, Sir, for any hon. Member of the House to put down a Motion asking that


this question be submitted either to a Select Committee of the House or to the Committee of Privileges?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), or the hon. Member who raised the matter, or any other hon. Member is quite entitled to put down a Motion if he so wishes.

Mr. G. Cooper: Is it not the case, Sir, that unless we maintain the principle that hon. Members of the House can be approached without the person approaching the hon. Member risking some penalty, hon. Members will be prevented from doing their duty adequately because the information will not come to us as it should come?

Mr. Speaker: I am all for protecting the privileges of the House, but I do not want to extend them because they might lead us into trouble. Quite definitely, this is not a matter in which Privilege is affected.

Mr. Eden: To be quite clear on your Ruling, Sir, so that there is no misunderstanding, am I not right in thinking that while that is so, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper), would be perfectly within his rights in raising this matter not only on a Motion but also on the Adjournment or in a debate at any time?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Blackburn: May I ask, Sir, if your Ruling does not in any way conflict with the fact that it would be open to you to rule it as a breach of Privilege if it were ever understood by an employee of a nationalised industry that, as the result of his raising a complaint to a Member

of Parliament he might thereby be dismissed? That would clearly be a breach of Privilege, would it not?

Mr. Speaker: That may be so, but this is not a matter of Privilege. That is my point.

Earl Winterton: Is not the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Blackburn), falling into a very serious error in using the phrase that you could rule, Sir, that it was a question of Privilege? May I say, with respect, that you have no such power; you have only power to rule that there is a prima facie case.

Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord is correct. But I thought I short-circuited it by saying that there was not even a prima facie case.

Mr. G. Cooper: May I move, Sir, that this matter be the subject of an inquiry at this time and that it be brought before a Select Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I presume that the hon. Member will put a Motion down, and then the Government can consider it.

Mr. Blackburn: Further to the point raised by the noble Lord, and in view of the great importance of this subject, may I understand, Sir, that you have not ruled that you would decline to accept as a prima facie case for a breach of Privilege, if it so occurred, a case where an employee of a nationalised industry was informed that if he communicated with a Member of Parliament he would, as a result, be discharged?

Mr. Speaker: I think we are getting a little muddled, if I may say so. After all, in this case nothing concrete was brought to the Table—that so-and-so had been dismissed. It is somewhat hypothetical and I cannot accept that, even as a prima facie case.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.49 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Chancellor in his Budget Speech has described in general terms what the proposals in this Bill are to be, and why. Although these proposals have been debated at some length in the course of the Budget debate and in discussion which was recently held in this House on the employment of the elderly, I want to take this opportunity to explain in a little more detail the general considerations which we have in mind.
I want at the outset to emphasise the interim character of the Bill. It deals with certain questions which, we feel, cannot wait until the review of the whole scheme which is to take place in 1954. A good deal more experience is needed of the working of the scheme before that review can be undertaken. I remind the House that I am under a statutory obligation to undertake that review in 1954.
In framing the Bill, I have tried to consider everybody's needs and to stretch the available resources to the uttermost, but inevitably there are some whose needs are greater than others, and these needs are reflected in the figures of applications for supplementary assistance. I have always believed that one of the truest measures of the greatness of a Government is its treatment of old people and children. Fine words which we hear about the dignity of labour the serenity of old age and the happiness of childhood, mean nothing if we do not help those people to be dignified, serene and happy.
At the same time, I do not want any of the groups who are entitled to insurance benefits to feel that they are being overlooked. For instance, I recognise that all widows, when suddenly called upon to face up to the responsibilities of the wage earner in addition to those of the home maker, have often to undergo a painful readjustment, but the difficulties of the widow with dependent children must always command our

special sympathy, for though she may have been a skilled worker before marriage she cannot, even if she so wishes, re-enter industry unless she can make proper provision for the care of her children. We propose, therefore, to increase the standard benefit rate of the widowed mother with one child to 40s. Over 100,000 widows will receive these increased rates.
Now I come to the question of the children. My own view is that the greatest measure of poverty is found in those families where there are dependent children and, therefore, increases in children's allowances will be given for all dependent children of widows, and of all people on sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, retirement pension and industrial injuries benefit. We propose that the eldest child should attract a benefit of 10s. and the others 2s. 6d. each in addition to the family allowance of 5s. Occasionally, an old person tells me that we are doing too much for the children at the expense of other categories of the community. I cannot agree. Only if a child is adequately fed can he develop to his full mental and physical stature, and for this reason I regard children's allowances of one kind or another as in the nature of a national investment.
In regard to retirement pensions, we propose to increase the standard benefit rates for those over 70–65 for women—to 30s., and to 20s. a week in the case of wives over 65 where the pension is based on their husband's insurance. About 3 million pensioners will benefit from these new rates. I should like to make it clear to the old people of the country that the scheme which has been worked out in regard to their pensions was not designed only with the needs and interests of the old people in mind, but also with the needs and interests of their children and their grandchildren in mind.
The improved expectation of life is something we should welcome as the reward of social progress. But it is agreed by all thinking people that unless the insurance scheme is modified in certain respects, in a comparatively few years' time the financial burden will be too heavy for the workers to carry; and they will be the children and grandchildren of the old people today. Therefore, we are anxious to encourage those who can work to go on a little longer, and in these days of full employment I feel that this policy


will not jeopardise the position of other workers in the labour field. The necessity for this will be understood when it is realised that at the beginning of the century there was only one person of pensionable age for every 10 people of working age. At present the ratio is one to five, and in less than a generation it will be one to three. Of course, if this is accompanied by an equivalent increase in the working life of the individual, well and good; but if not, the proportion of non-workers in the community will rise at the same rate and the outlook will be bleak.
Even if we make no improvements of benefits, the Government Actuary estimates that the expenditure on benefits, which is now rather more than £400 million, will reach about £750 million in 25 years' time. During that period the working population, and therefore the contribution income, which will be £370 million will remain almost stationary. The balance will have to be found by the taxpayer or the contributor. The liability of the general taxpayer would reach £360 million a year by 1978 on the basis of present benefit rates and conditions and on the assumption that people will retire at their present ages of retirement.
Fortunately, the increase in the proportion of old people in the population has been accompanied by general improvements in health and fitness among the elderly. The present position is well illustrated by the fact that the expectation of life of a man of 65 is now 12½ years and that of a woman of 60 rather more than 18 years. We are always the tougher sex—I do not know why, neither does anybody else. The right hon. Lady the Member for Moss Side (Miss Horsbrugh) and I, therefore, still have great expectations.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: What is the expectation of life of a woman at 65? [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the same thing."] No, it is not.

Dr. Summerskill: I leave the hon. Member to work that out. At any rate, it is approximately the same, within a year or two. Thanks to the improved health and other social services, we may still expect this tendency to continue. But I think the House will agree that this tendency calls for a revision of the general attitude towards old age and retirement. Rising

productivity alone cannot take care of the problem. Pensioners will expect, and rightly expect, to share in any improvement in the general standards of living of the people.
From a sample of persons who attained pensionable age after July, 1948, it appears that the proportion of men not retired one month after pension age was about 60 per cent., and the proportion who had not retired about six months after pension age was between 52 and 54 per cent. Of the insured men now reaching the age of 70 nearly one-third are still in employment, and of the insured women now reaching the age of 65 nearly a fifth are still in employment. These are certainly encouraging figures.
It should be remembered that the principle of these improvements with regard to the elderly was introduced in the last Measure. The first step was taken in the present Act when, for old age pensions payable at the conventional age of 65–60 for women—we substituted the retirement pension, with the right to increments, conditional on retirement from work. An unconditional pension is only provided at the higher ages of 70 and 65. I hope that hon. Members when making their contributions to the debate will recognise that this new principle of conditional retirement was introduced in the Act which operates today.
Under our new proposal the worker's eventual pension will be increased by 1s. 6d. instead of 1s. as at present, for every 25 contributions paid after this provision of the Bill comes into operation. This means that a worker who postpones retirement for the full period of five years, up to the age of 70, from that age will have 15s. a week, instead of 10s. as at present, added to his increased rate of pension of 30s., so that he will have a total pension of 45s. If a worker works under those provisions until he is 70 he gets a total pension of 45s.
The combined pensions of a married couple where the wife is not working—which means of course where her pension is not governed by her own insurance—can ultimately be 75s.—£3 15s. If the husband dies first his widow will then get 45s. If the wife has kept her own insurance alive and has gone on working until 65 they can get £4 10s. between them, 45s. each, if they are both insured in their own right.
Now I turn to the earnings rule which has limited the amount which may be earned by a retirement pensioner under 70 or a widow without reduction of pension. In the future the limit will be £2 and the widowed mother will not have the amount due on account of her children reduced by her earnings. Those who have not given this matter of the earnings rule considerable thought find it difficult to understand why it should be applied at all. In the first place, we wish to encourage those who can to go on working as long as possible and not to rely on a pension supplemented by part-time earnings. Moreover, I think it must be clear—and I have said this before in answer to Questions at this Table—particularly to trade unionists, that we should not allow a pension to become a subsidy to wages and so offer a temptation to the unscrupulous employer to undercut wages.
Since the principal Act came into operation there have been retirement pensioners who have expressed the wish that fuller consideration should have been given to the whole principle of retirement before they finally decided to retire. This was considered of course when the Bill was going through the House——

Mr. James Glanville: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Durham County there are thousands of men who were compulsorily retired at 65 for no other reason than that they had reached 65? What possibility is there of those men now being reinstated in work now that their ages are 67 or 68?

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be patient and hear what I have to say, for I think he will agree that, although there are perhaps groups which he feels have been penalised in the past, there is no reason why I should not try to modify the present provisions and make them more acceptable to present workers. It is possible for trade unions, of course, to make representation of behalf of certain groups of workers in order that their conditions of life may be integrated with the provisions of this Bill.
Old age pensioners have said they wished they had a little more time to think it over as in that case they might have decided to remain within industry. It was felt at the time the original Measure was going through the House that it was not possible to allow people to retire and then change their minds, because it must be

remembered that retirement marks the end of insurance contributions and a change of mind calls for the re-establishment of a pensioner as a contributor in insurance.
I have given further thought to this and, having regard to the new and more favourable conditions in this Bill, I think that those who have already retired should be allowed to have second thoughts. They should be allowed to reconsider their position and, if they so desire, to commence work again. For the reasons I have given, this option can only be exercised once and, in order to remove any financial difficulty which these pensioners may experience—they may feel, having retired over that period, that it will be difficult to catch up with the contributions they should have made during their retirement period—we shall be able to give contribution credits covering the period during which the pensioner has retired so as to help him to qualify once more for sickness and unemployment benefits.
These credits, of course, will not count towards increment of pension. A person coming out of retirement will forgo his pension until he finally retires, or reaches the age of 70–65 in the case of a woman—but will then qualify for increments at the new rate. It may be that his wife, who has been accustomed to her husband being retired for a number of years, will be anxious to retain her own pension. She may be willing for her husband to go back to work but be reluctant to give up her own pension. In this case the wife would be allowed to retain her own pension.
It is important for reasons pointed out in the recent debate on the employment of the elderly, that people should think carefully before they retire. This point must be borne in mind by men who are in a position approximating to that which my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville) mentioned. If men throw up their regular jobs they may be found difficult to fit into other employment if later they decide to resume work. It is equally important that they should not be encouraged to take their pension as a supplement to their earnings while still capable of full time work I would like to stress both these points
Perhaps I might sum up our proposals: Pensions for men over 70 and 65 for women are to go up by 4s.
For pensioners under these ages: The earnings limit is increased to 40s., and the increments for workers are increased from 1s. to 1s. 6d. for each 25 contributions.
People who have already retired will be allowed to resume their place in the industrial field and qualify for higher pensions.
The rates for widowed mothers and children are increased and the earnings limit for all widows is increased to 40s.
Many hon. Members have approached me in regard to National Assistance. The new pension rates will, of course, have to be taken into account in fixing the amount of supplementation in future. How far this will affect the income of a man or woman in receipt of supplementation will depend on the scales of assistance in force when our new pension rates take effect.
As the House knows, assistance scales are a matter for the National Assistance Board in the first place, and I cannot make a definite statement at the moment. [Interruption.] I can, however, say this to my hon. Friend behind me who is tuttutting: I have been told informally that the Board are fully aware that in the light of current price trends, there is a need to increase these scales, and that their intention is to produce proposals which will be brought into force at the same time as the new rates of benefit provided by this Bill. Moreover I understand that they contemplate that the increases in the rate of assistance for single adults should correspond to the increase provided by the Bill. There would, of course, also be suitable adjustments in other rates.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, may I ask her whether that statement means that neither the Treasury nor any other Government Department will put anything in the way of the National Assistance Board so changing their regulations that those who are applying for assistance will be no worse off than those who are to get the benefits of this Bill?

Dr. Summerskill: If my hon. Friend will read what I have said, he will see that it shows that we are anxious that the National Assistance scales should approximate to the rates that I have already mentioned in regard to National Insurance.

Mr. Paton: This is of great importance. Am I right in thinking that my right hon. Friend stated that the intention is that the National Assistance Board will do nothing until the appointed day? If that is so it will be tragic for many people who are now in receipt of supplementation.

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend must remember that from the administrative point of view it is rather important that these two schemes should coincide. Otherwise a pensioner may be having his assistance increased, then reduced and so on, and I do not think that the pensioner will be very happy about that.

Mr. Summers: Is it not a fact that the rates of national assistance should have regard to changes in the cost of living, far more so than any changes in legislation, quite apart from these considerations?

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman reads my words, he will see that I have mentioned that. I had, in this matter, to choose my words carefully because obviously this is a matter for the National Assistance Board and I had no desire to encroach on their province.

Mr. Summers: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that if changes in the cost of living to a substantial extent arise long before the appointed day, it would become necessary to do something about national assistance rates irrespective of this Bill?

Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Member that the National Assistance Board watches that point.

Mrs. Jean Mann: My right hon. Friend has said that it is necessary that the National Assistance Board's scales should approximate to the new rates announced in respect of pensions. Many of my constituents are already in receipt, from the National Assistance Board, of rates that approximate to the new pensions. Will they be any better off as a result of the new rates of pensions?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes. I think that if my hon. Friend considers what I have said she will see that of course they will toe. I ask hon. Members not to press me on this point. This is a matter for the National Assistance Board, and they have not yet published their proposals. I recognise that my position in this matter


is a little curious. I am responsible to the House for what the National Assistance Board does. On the other hand, they are an autonomous body. It would be quite wrong for me, having made this statement, now to anticipate what they propose to do.

Mr. Tom Brown: I regret to have to intervene here, but this is vital. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the event of this House deciding to bring forward the appointed day, the National Assistance Board's scales, which it is now promised will be raised, will be ready to be paid at the new selected appointed day?

Dr. Summerskill: I think that my hon. Friend will agree with me that that is rather hypothetical.
I now turn to the cost of these proposals. I apologise to the House for giving certain figures but I think they will, after hon. Members have carefully digested them, prove to be very useful and interesting. During the first full year the improved benefits are estimated to cost an additional £39 million. Of this, £33 million is accounted for by the improvements in retirement pension, £2,600,000 is in respect of widowed mothers and their children, and £3,200,000 in respect of the children of other beneficiaries. While the last two items are not expected to increase in future years, the cost of the improvements in pensions will rise, over 25 years, to £80 million per year. The additional cost to the Industrial Injuries Fund of the improved increases of benefit for children will be about £300,000 immediately, and may ultimately rise to £400,000.
We are doing all this without making any increase in contributions beyond the 4d. already provided for in the 1946 Act. This has been made possible by the success of our policy of full employment. We have been accused of "raiding the fund." I submit that that is an abuse of language. It is true that for the next few years the annual payments from the Exchequer, taking together the supplementary contribution and the block grant, will not be as large as was required on the assumption of 8½ per cent. unemployment. I wish the House to bear carefully in mind the fact that when the calculations were originally made it was estimated that

there would be 8½ per cent. unemployment.
The amounts we are providing for will be adequate, and are designed, as were the original payments laid down in the 1946 Act, to keep the fund in balance but not to increase it indefinitely. There are, of course, various ways of doing this pending the comprehensive review of this scheme in 1954. The Bill proposes to do it by reducing the Exchequer proportionate contribution under Section 2 (3, a) of the Act and maintaining the block grant under Section 2 (3, b) on an ascending scale. I want the House to understand that if the objective is accepted the ways and means of achieving it are obviously open to detailed consideration. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury may say a few words later on this subject.
I wish to say something about what I call the social security budget. I feel that this is a matter of topical interest. Again I apologise for giving figures to the House, but I would ask Members to examine them at their leisure. It should be remembered that in the Report leading up to the National Insurance Act the Exchequer liability for National Insurance was considered not in isolation but in conjunction with its liabilities for National Assistance, children's allowances and health services. It was what Lord Beveridge called the social security budget.
Round about 1945, when all these schemes were coming to fruition, it was estimated that the Exchequer charge for National Insurance would total £131 million in 1951–52. In fact, the current estimates provide for £144 million, which will be reduced to £86 million as a result of this Bill, but the block grant will of course go up again after a few years. On the other hand, the aggregate of the estimates for 1951–52 for family allowances, non-contributory old age pensions, and assistance, which in 1945—I wish to make it quite clear that this was the estimate made in 1945 for 1951–52—was put at £92 million is now £156 million; and those for the National Health Service, after allowing for contributions from National Insurance, have changed from the £125 million estimate of 1945 to £400 million.
Thus the other Services, though expected—five or six years ago—to cost the Exchequer about £220 million, will actually


need nearly £560 million, or £340 million more. For the social security budget as a whole, therefore, so far from cutting its charges, the Exchequer is paying far more than was contemplated so recently as five years ago, when these Acts were first put on the Statute Book. Further, this leaves out of account the increasingly heavy load upon the Exchequer which has been accepted in recent years for the education services. I would point out that while it is true that under the provisions of the Bill the Exchequer in 1952–53 will meet only about 8 per cent. of the whole expenditure on National Insurance, in 25 years' time not only will the expenditure for benefits have nearly doubled at £850 million, but the Exchequer will have to meet more than half of this.
Now I would say a word about our administrative plans. In the White Paper already presented we said it was hoped that all the main provisions of the Bill would be in operation in the week beginning 1st October next. Clearly it was not possible for me to take any steps before the Budget statement, and until the necessary legislation reaches the Statute Book any steps I take can be only of a preparatory character. However, I would assure hon. Members that no time is being lost in making all preparations within our power on the assumption that the Bill will pass in substantially its present form. To give effect to the proposals a considerable number of new and amending regulations will have to be made and laid before Parliament. At the same time, preparations will be going forward for implementing the Bill.
I am glad to say that some important provisions will be brought into force, we hope, almost immediately after the Bill becomes law. These are the new rates of increment of pension for postponed retirement, the provisions still to be worked out for enabling pensioners to come out of retirement and again become eligible to earn pension increments, and, finally, the proposed 40s. earnings disregarded. I hope that these three provisions will come into operation immediately after the Bill receives the final assent.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: The Minister has mentioned that

she is very anxious to encourage pensioners to come back to work. Would she please tell the House what a person earning £2 a week would get; what a person earning £3 a week would get and what a person earning £3 10s. a week would get from the fund?

Dr. Summerskill: If such a person comes back and earns his pension and his increments he will get the amount I have already stated——

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Bennett rose——

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to continue, because I am in the middle of something entirely removed from that point.
Whereas we are anxious for the provisions I have mentioned to come into operation immediately the Bill becomes law, I cannot promise that we shall be able to expedite the work which is involved in making the increases in the rates of pension. The work involved in ensuring that people shall receive their increased rates of pension is quite a different matter. There are well over three million pensioners eligible for this increase. Where children are concerned payment of the increases will involve the supply of additional information by pensioners and a fairly detailed examination of all these cases at the local offices. But even where there is a straight increase in pension, where there are no children involved, the resulting work will be formidable.
I am probably telling hon. Members what they know, because they are generally much concerned with the conditions of life of the pensioners in their constituencies. Most people know that pensions are paid by means of books of 52 weekly orders, which are security documents, similar to a cheque or money order. These books are held by pensioners and exchanged as they run out at the rate of about 80,000 a week. Pensioners affected by these proposals are therefore at any moment holding something like 75 million of these security documents; and a steady stream of additional books of orders is going out week by week to them. All these orders must be replaced either by orders for the new rates, or by amended orders, properly authenticated, before the Post Office officials can pay the new pensions. I would ask hon. Members to remember that.


Some of them have suggested that this money might be paid out without our taking the usual precautions. I think it would be agreed by hon. Members on both sides of the House that that would be an entirely irresponsible approach to this matter.

Mr. P. Hartley: On that point, may I remind my right hon. Friend that last year about this time, we decided to approve regulations relating to the National Assistance Board? They came into operation in a matter of about six weeks. How does she explain the six or seven months for this change?

Dr. Summerskill: The administration of National Assistance is different from the administration of insurance and I am now talking about insurance. We shall do everything in our power to bring the new rates into force as soon as possible. It depends on the present Bill passing through Parliament without undue delay and without serious Amendment, and on the co-operation of other Departments, particularly the Post Office, and the Stationery Office, for whom I think it will be recognised this work presents serious difficulties. Above all, it depends on the pensioners who will be asked in the weeks before the new rates become operative to apply at local National Insurance offices, on a staggered programme, to have their present order books altered or replacement books issued to them.
This is not a job which can be done by a stroke of the pen. I am quite satisfied that the administrative arrangements which we have in mind are the best and easiest way possible of giving effect to the changes provided by this Bill. I know I can rely on the whole-hearted co-operation of my staff and on the pensioners themselves and I shall undertake to do everything in my power to bring forward the date of operation a week or two.
Finally, I would remind hon. Members that this is only an interim measure, but its importance must not be under-rated on that account. It is a further step forward' on the road which leads to health and security for everyone. We might have taken the line that nothing could be done pending the full review in 1954. By putting forward these proposals now we have shown once again our constant concern for those whose need is greatest, and it is in that spirit that I commend the Bill to the House.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: The right hon. Lady has explained this Measure to the House with a lucidity, patience and amiability which we have come to regard as characteristic of her. I hope that that compliment will satisfy even the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), who I am afraid has now left the Chamber.
We must remember that this is an insurance Bill, and we must emphasise the word "insurance." That implies a relationship between the contributions, which are premiums, and the benefits. I think that our people like insurance. They like to get benefits as of right. They like the contractual relationship between them and the fund which avoids any inquiry as to their means.
The National Insurance Act, 1946, merged and extended the existing schemes to the whole population, and it added some new benefits. It contained one highly novel idea, for which Sir William Beveridge, as he then was, deserves the very highest credit, and that was the idea of supplanting age pensions given in respect of passing a given age by retirement pensions conditional on retirement. This change seems to me to be by no means fully realised in the country generally. There seems very little appreciation that this change has taken place and has nearly become a complete process.
I would reinforce what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget Statement, that there is a pressing need that private schemes of pensions of all kinds, whether they be in Government service, in local government service, or in private industry, should be so modified as to make the retirement conditions devised by Sir William Beveridge fully effective. The National Insurance Act was framed on the basis that eventually the fund would be self-supporting, that is to say, that the joint contributions of employers and workpeople, combined with the proportionate Exchequer supplement, would meet the annual expenditure.
But that was only eventually going to come about, because it would not occur until pensioners had earned their retirement pensions by the contributions paid by them or on their behalf throughout the full period, that is, from the age of 16 to 65 in the case of men, and 16 to 60


in the case of women. In the intervening period of 49 years in the case of a man—from 1946 to 1995—in order to meet the cost of retirement pensions for those who have not paid the full number of contributions, Exchequer subsidies would be necessary, increasing steadily for the first 20 years until they reached a maximum in about the 25th year, but thereafter steadily diminishing as more and more retiring pensioners have nearly earned in full their retirement pensions.
The Report of the Government Actuary on this Bill is a most valuable document. It shows, in Table II on page 6, that at present rates of contribution and at the present level of benefits the additional Exchequer subsidies will have to grow to some £280 million by 1967 and to £420 million by 1977. These subsidies, as the right hon. Lady has said, as their full weight grows, will throw a very heavy burden on our economy. The deficiences in the fund to be made good by the taxpayer will be a very heavy burden. It is no good any of us blinking or shutting our eyes to that fact.
In one respect, as the right hon. Lady pointed out, the fund has been more fortunate than was anticipated. The forecast for the future of 8½ per cent. average unemployment has, fortunately, not been borne out by experience, Actually it has been 1½ per cent. instead of 8½ per cent. Each 1 per cent. drop in the unemployment level, as far as I can calculate, saves £12 million to the fund in benefits which would otherwise have been paid out, and gains £3 million to the fund by way of additional contributions that are paid in. Therefore, we may calculate that for every 1 per cent. drop in unemployment there is a £15 million saving to the fund.
That means, unemployment being 7 per cent. lower than was forecast in 1946, that the fund has had the benefit of £105 million a year more than would otherwise have been the case. But even on the most favourable forecast regarding the future trend of unemployment, the surplus resulting from low unemployment can never be in any way sufficient to meet the vast bulk of expenditure which is going to occur in respect of the increasing number of retirement pensioners who have not paid the actuarial number of contributions.
That is the background of the Government's proposals, and that is no doubt what was responsible for the Chancellor stating in his Budget speech, and the right hon. Lady confirming it today, that it will be necessary, at some not very distant date, to raise the minimum retirement age. We all subscribed in all parties to the Beveridge Plan. We are all equally committed to it. It is necessary to emphasise that if we do more at the present, as this Bill proposes, to relieve the need of the elderly and make more comfortable their declining years, it makes it all the more inevitable that the minimum age of retirement will have to be increased, because otherwise the burden thrown on those of working age in the community will become insupportable, before equilibrium in the fund can be attained in 46 years' time. Few of us in this Chamber may be here in 46 years' time when this fund attains equilibrium. Many of us may have gone to another place, and I use that phrase in more senses than one.
I now want to turn for a moment to the two or three main proposals in the Bill. I do not intend to discuss many of the smaller points which I regard as more suitable for the Committee stage. The right hon. Lady will be aware of the feeling on the benches behind her, which is shared on these benches, that the Bill should be brought into force as early as possible. I think it is obviously the wish of the whole House that the Bill should come into force at an early date. I hope that the date of 1st October has been chosen for purely administrative reasons and has nothing whatever to do with the possible date of a General Election.
Let us consider the proposals in the Bill. The main one is undoubtedly—or at any rate it is the most costly—the raising of the benefit rates for those of 70 in the case of men and of 65 in the case of women. It has been perfectly obvious to everybody ever since this Bill was published that if the most needy of all are to obtain any benefit from the Bill, it will be necessary to make a corresponding adjustment in the National Assistance rates. Personally, I was satisfied with the right hon. Lady's statement upon that point this afternoon.
There are sound and valid arguments both for and against this proposal that the basic rates should be raised at the


ages of 70 and 65 respectively. In favour of the proposal, of course, there is first the argument of the considerable hardship which has been caused to elderly people by the progressive rise in the cost of living. This proposal goes some way, but I think not the whole way, towards restoring the value of the benefits as they stood when they were fixed in 1946. The second strong argument in favour of this proposal is the steadily growing number of elderly people who have had to have recourse to the National Assistance Board. There has been a steady increase in those seeking assistance.
On the other side, there is a powerful argument on a matter of principle. One of the basic features of the Beveridge Plan was that the main basic rates of benefit should be uniform, whether for unemployment, for sickness or for pension at the basic rate. That was one of the most striking features of the Beveridge Plan. This proposal cuts across that principle. At the same time, having tried to balance the arguments fairly for and against this proposal, I am not disposed to quarrel with it, but I must make it clear that I, and most of my hon. Friends, could not support the extension downward of the new benefit rates to minimum retirement ages. That would not only be a very costly proposal, but it would act as an incentive to early retirement, and that is the one thing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech said that we must avoid at all costs.

Mr. Paton: When the right hon. Gentleman says that this would be a very costly proposal, surely he has not closely examined two matters with reference to this point. First, the total expenditure could not exceed about £10 million. That would be the highest total figure, because this affects only about one quarter of the total and it must be under £10 million. Secondly, this cost would not fall on the Exchequer, but it could easily be borne by funds which we all know have been swollen considerably above what is necessary.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I do not think that his argument really controverts what I suggested. I say that it would be very costly because it would automatically attract corresponding and equal increases of benefit in the basic rates fixed by the Beveridge scheme for

sickness, unemployment and so on. In the case of a man of 62 or 63 who might fall out of employment, it would be wrong to give him differing rates of benefit in respect of unemployment or retirement.
I turn to the proposals for the higher increments. These I thoroughly and wholeheartedly applaud. They are extremely good and, for my part, I would like to see the principle extended further. I am sure that one of the best ways to secure that more elderly people remain in employment after reaching the minimum retirement age is to provide a better scale of increments to be earned by non-retirement. I and my hon. Friends on this side of the House would have liked to see an increase similar to that given to the man, also given to the man in respect of his wife.
Under the Bill, the increment applies only to the man remaining in employment. I should like to see the double increment where the man is a married man. Nor do I see why the increments need to be confined to the case where both the man and the wife have reached retiring age. Many men are married to women who are several years younger than themselves. I should have thought that it was reasonable to provide that a man remaining at work until, say, 67 could earn a double increment where he was married to a woman of 56. I give that instance by way of example.
The principle of these increments is in all respects beneficial. I do not think that it will cost the fund anything to increase the increments. In fact, it will be seen from the Report by the Government Actuary on the Bill that the Government Actuary, who is the soul of caution as a rule, is so uncertain as to whether the fund will gain or lose by the increased increments proposed in the Bill that he does not put any extra figure of cost as resulting from increasing the increments. Of course, in theory——

Mr. Daines: Perhaps it might be that if the right hon. Gentleman turned to the Report of the Government Actuary published in 1950, he would agree that, by comparison with 1936, the effect was that there was no increase at all.

Mr. Peake: That, for reasons which I will not give because I do not want to


bore the House, is a false comparison. The rates of pension in force in 1936 were very much lower than they are now. One cannot deduce anything from a comparison with 1936. It will be seen from paragraph 7 of the Report of the Government Actuary on this Bill that the Government Actuary is very doubtful whether any increased cost whatever will result, at any rate in the early years, from the increased increments proposed. Of course, if the increments were on a sufficiently generous scale, then the Actuary's dream might come true. Everybody would remain at work, with the carrot of increasing increments in front of their noses, until they dropped dead in harness and there would be no burden on the fund at all. I will not deal in detail now with the other proposals.
I come now to my main criticism of this Measure. As I indicated in the Budget debate, that relates to the way in which this Bill handles the Exchequer contributions. We can see now in the Bill, and in the Report of the Government Actuary, what the Chancellor only sketched in his Budget Statement. These new documents were not available when I spoke in the Budget debate; but they were available when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) made, in his resignation statement, what I considered to be some very unfair strictures on the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The right hon. Gentleman's resignation statement contained only one useful thing that I could see, and that was that it gave us quite a useful addendum to our Parliamentary glossary, one of which I personally have often felt the need, and that was in the word "manoeuvre." If, in the future, I can, without your intervention, Mr. Speaker, say that another hon. Member has been guilty of a characteristic manoeuvre, I shall know exactly what I mean, and my feelings will be correspondingly relieved without any injury to the decorum of the House. The right hon. Gentleman's strictures on the Chancellor will gain him no support on this side of the House.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: We do not expect it.

Mr. Peake: I am not at all sure because, in the resignation statement which the right hon. Gentleman made, he seemed to me to be borrowing one or

two statements from the speech which I had made on the Budget a week earlier. I should like to remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman said on this matter. He said that the Chancellor had stolen £100 million a year from the National Insurance Fund, and that the re-armament of Britain was being financed out of the contributions that the workers had paid into the fund in order to protect themselves. He completely overlooked the fact that the Exchequer, in the last four years, has paid into the fund, over and above their normal proportionate contributions, no less than £160 million in subsidies intended to meet deficiencies which, in fact, have not been realised; and that £160 million has gone to swell the present large surplus in the fund. Further, the right hon. Gentleman overlooked the point that the workers, who, in his view, were being robbed in order that Britain could be re-armed, contribute in any event only some 40 per cent., or rather less, of the total contributions.
My criticism of the proposals in the Budget differ very materially—and I want to make this very clear to the House—from those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale. The intention of all parties in this House in 1946 was that the reserve fund should remain stable. It was never intended that the reserve fund should grow, as, in fact, it has done, and it was not intended to build up the reserves in earlier years to meet the great bulge in retirement benefits which will have to be met in 20 or 30 years' time. To build up the fund in that way would be both dangerous and liable to abuse. A fund of this sort is so big that it has to be under the control of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to give the Chancellor the power to inject £140 million of new money every year into the gilt-edged market, places temptations in the way of a Chancellor which I think are too great for him to resist.
At any rate, experience has shown that these temptations have proved irresistible in the past, and, while the Government Actuary in this admirable Report says that the reserve fund of £786 million remains intact—and I dare say that is technically true, because the bonds and bits of paper are no doubt still there, and nobody has taken them away yet—their market value is shown by the accounts of the Ministry of National Insurance,


which show that over £50 million of the reserve fund has in fact been lost, owing, in my opinion, to investing this money in ways in which it should not have been invested at all.
I now want to turn to the two parts of the Exchequer contribution which go to build up the whole. The Exchequer subsidies, or what the Government Actuary calls subsidies—that is, not the proportionate contributions, but the payments under Section 2 (3, b) of the Act of 1946—starting at £36 million and moving up by steps of £4 million a year until they reach £60 million, were intended to be deficiency payments, only intended to make good the anticipated shortfall in the revenue of the fund; and the payment of them has been made as the result of a miscalculation regarding the future trend of unemployment. These subsidies, or deficiency payments, can be fairly and justly, in my opinion, be dropped for the next few years, until they become necessary once more as a result of the growing cost of retirement pensions.
What I do take the strongest possible objection to is the reduction to a mere token figure of the proportionate and contractual part of the Exchequer contribution. It is to be reduced in the case of class I contributors from 2s. 1d. per week to 6d. a week in respect of each joint contribution, and the joint contribution, now 8s. 5d. per week, is to be raised to 8s. 9d. next October. As the proposed new figure of 6d. per week, which gives £27 million a year, as against £96 million being paid under this head at the present time, the Exchequer contribution will merely cover the cost of the administration of the scheme.
I attach the very deepest importance to the tripartite principle adopted in all our schemes of social insurance over the last 30 or 40 years. It is absolutely fundamental in social insurance schemes. The proportion of the Exchequer contribution has always been one-sixth in the case of sickness, health and pensions, and it has always been one-third in the case of unemployment. These rates were confirmed and re-adopted with general consent in 1946, and the one-sixth Exchequer contribution was accepted by all parties in connection with the new Industrial Injuries Insurance Scheme, with which I had some connection when I was at the Home Office.
I remember very well the rather revolutionary proposal, as regards industrial injuries, to abolish workmen's compensation, under which the whole cost fell on the employer, and to share the cost between workers, employers and the Exchequer. That was considered very revolutionary, and I remember the extent to which I had to exercise what persuasive powers I possess with the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, who was concerned in this matter, in order to get the insurance scheme adopted.
I remember also how I had to try to persuade, and was very happily met in this matter, by the present Minister of Pensions, who was then acting as leader on this question for the Trades Union Congress. I remember how we were able to tell them that this pill was gilded a little, because the Exchequer would pay a substantial contribution to the new fund. Therefore, I feel that we ought to insist upon the retention of a substantial regular contribution, proportionate to that of the workpeople and that from the employers, by the Exchequer for the future. After all, if the proportion is reduced, as the Bill proposes, to a mere one-seventeenth in the case of the National Insurance Act, surely the Industrial Injuries Insurance Scheme is going to be the next victim of similar treatment.

Mr. John McKay: While there may be something in what the right hon. Gentleman says about the year immediately ahead, nevertheless I think he will find in actual practice that if they pay more in contributions, it simply means that they pay less in the block grant. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that as the years go by, the Exchequer will be paying more than half the money needed.

Mr. Peake: I can quite understand that it does not seem to matter very much to the hon. Gentleman whether it is paid by proportionate contribution or by way of subsidy, but to me it is absolutely vital, and I believe that the majority of hon. Members are with me in this and believe that the Exchequer should pay a fixed proportion of the contributions of workpeople and employers to the insurance fund.
I would not press that it is absolutely essential to maintain the precise amount of Exchequer payment which is being


paid at the present time. A grave miscalculation was made as to the future trend of unemployment before the 1946 Act was passed. Out of the 2s. 1d. contribution which the Exchequer makes at present per week in respect of each joint contribution to the fund in the case of the adult man, no less than 1s. goes towards the unemployment risk which has proved to be so much smaller than was imagined when the scheme was brought forward. Therefore, I believe it is possible to frame a scheme today—I do not believe it is at all beyond the wit of the hon. Gentleman's advisers at the Treasury—which, for the next few years, will fulfil these two conditions, on the one hand, of not increasing the reserve fund, and, on the other, of maintaining a really substantial proportionate Exchequer contribution to the fund year by year.
I hope that when the Financial Secretary speaks in the debate, as I think he proposes to do, he will be able to say something which will meet us on this point. To my mind, the principle is really very vital. It is the State which compels everybody to come into these schemes, it is the State which prescribes the detailed terms of all these insurance policies, and the State may, and often does, vary the terms of the contract between the insured person and the fund from time to time as may be necessary in the public interest. Those are the reasons why it has always been thought right, fair and proper that the Exchequer, compelling all this and doing all this, should make a regular and proportionate contribution to the fund. I feel that this principle must not be abandoned, and if the Financial Secretary can make a satisfactory statement on the matter, as the right hon. Lady rather indicated he might, then we on this side of the House shall offer no opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: There are so many who desire to take part in this debate that it is suggested that we should confine our contributions to a maximum of 15 minutes. I hope that when I have taken up 14 minutes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Kirkwood), will nudge me. Let me make it clear that I am not complaining, but welcome the suggestion, because I think

it is good that in our form of democracy there should be such widespread interest in this matter. But it does prevent us from making a close analysis of the Bill before us, and also from doing justice to it. As far as possible, therefore, I shall confine myself to broad principles, and I hope that on the Committee stage we may be able to make a closer analysis of the Clauses.
The Minister stressed that this is an interim Bill, and I must say that that increased my concern about it. It reminded me of the Chancellor's Budget speech and of what he said about this matter. During the whole of the right hon. Lady's speech, she did not mention a word about the greater tempo in industry, with its effect upon those engaged in it, particularly its effect on the working-class man and woman. I heartily welcome the right hon. Lady's statement, if I understood it correctly, that, in the Government's opinion, action should be taken as soon as possible by the National Assistance Board. To that extent, her statement will be generally welcomed throughout the country, and we shall expect the National Assistance Board to implement these desires as early as possible, and to see that those in need through no fault of their own receive the maximum benefit provided in this Bill, and that in the case of women it shall be given at 60 years of age and in the case of men at 65.
All my life, we—when I say "we," I am speaking for the trade unions, the Co-operative Movement and the Labour Movement in which I was brought up—have been keen on bringing about a minimum below which our people should not be expected to live, and as I am only typical of the average man and woman living in large industrial centres, it was with that at the back of my mind that, speaking during the war on behalf of our party, I said that we welcomed the Beveridge Report, that we wanted to seize it with both hands and to have it implemented as soon as possible These aspirations and ideas quickly manifested themselves throughout the Armed Forces wherever our boys were serving. Letters and telegrams on the subject were sent home, with the result that the Government agreed to implement that Report.
The Labour Party was born out of this idea that I am now expressing, and we have a relatively good record on National


Insurance. Therefore, I hope we shall watch every step in order to see that we do not spoil that record. Almost every trade union in this country and the Trades Union Congress have, during the whole of my lifetime, stressed the need for pensions for all at 60 years of age. Being realists, we compromised on that 60 years when the Beveridge Report was before us, and as a result we have now had almost five years of the results of its implementation.
It would be wrong on an historic occasion such as this not to remind ourselves that it was Bob Smillie and the miners, in particular, who waited upon Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George in order to impress on them the need for raising the pension from 5s., as it then was, to 7s. 6d. I intended to put this on record because in these days when large numbers of people are coming more and more into our movement, people with no background and who have had no struggles, it needs to be put on record. I am not complaining about that, and, of course, I welcome them, but nevertheless we must be on our guard in order to ensure that those in this movement of ours, which has been built up on the sacrifices of our people, continue to remember what were the aims of the people who built it.
I want to extend great credit to my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, who as Minister of National Insurance was responsible for introducing the Bill which implemented the Report in 1946. The Beveridge Report suggested a period of 20 years for the transition from National Health Insurance to the present scheme. It is greatly to the credit of the 1946 Parliament, in particular, and also of the Government that they were not satisfied with that transitional period, but implemented the Report at once. The result is that millions of people in our country have great cause to bless those who were in that 1946 Parliament.
I must say that I felt very disturbed at one phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake). Those who have been in the House some time remember the contributions he made to our debates in the past. The miners looked forward to those contributions and treated them with great respect because of his great experience in the mining industry. But I am very

nervous and concerned about the phrase he used. I am sure that when I remind him of it he will not go on smiling. If I understood him correctly, he said we shall have to raise the minimum age for retirement, sooner or later.

Mr. Peake: The Chancellor said it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Yes, but that does not make it right.

Mr. Peake: It makes me smile.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am not smiling. As one who has experienced conditions in large-scale industry and one who knows the tempo of those engaged in industry, I cannot smile at the suggestion that the minimum age should be raised beyond 65. No matter who may believe in it, there will be great opposition to any proposal of that character throughout the industrial areas. The physical effect of modern conditions is not uniform. It varies from industry to industry, and had there been more time, I could have contrasted the contribution made by some people with that which is being made in the highly industrialised areas.
The retirement age should not be changed from 65 years by anyone. George Lansbury, even in 1911, pleaded in this House for the age to be fixed at 65 years. It is on record in HANSARD to be read by everyone. Here, after the mountains of wealth produced by our people, there is the audacious suggestion that the retiring age should be increased beyond 65. I admit that in this very serious economic situation those who desire to work, should be encouraged to work after the age of 65, but it should be a matter for individual decision and not a decision to be made with a penalising effect by the State.
In the industrial areas I see men and women going out in all kinds of weather every day and every week and every month of every year from the time when they are 15 years of age until they are 65. I see them gradually walk more slowly as a result of bronchial trouble, asthma, rheumatism and many other diseases and difficulties of that kind. It is absolutely wrong that men and women who contract diseases and disabilities like that should be expected to work after they are 65 years of age.
I am a very lucky man. I stand here only because medical science


saved my life. I am no better than any other man or woman in this country and I visualise myself walking along the roads in industrial areas at 60. Had I been in the state I was in four years ago, I could not have held my own day after day in the present tempo of industry. It is absolutely wrong for anyone to make suggestions of that character.
I have a letter here addressed to a correspondent from the Railway Executive at Wigford House, Lincoln, dated 14th February, 1950. It says:
DEAR CLARK,
You will shortly be leaving the employ of the Railway Executive, having passed the age of 65 years. I should like to send my best wishes to you for your good health and happiness in retirement and to thank you for the good work done in the 36 years you have been employed in the railway industry.
It has been suggested that men who receive letters of that character should work on to 70. Let me read another letter. If after hearing it, anyone entertains the thought that a man or woman should go on working beyond 65, then he must be as cold as an iceberg. Before I read it, let me remind the Minister—and I do not want her to take this in any personal sense—that I was a voluntary contributor for 10 years to safeguard my pension rights, and those of my wife, when I came into this House. Men and women in this country have been voluntary contributors for 10, 20 and 30 years and now when they are nearing 65 years of age, proposals are being made that they should work on until they are 70 or should not have an adequate pension at 65. The letter to which I referred says:
As a contributor to National Insurance since May, 1912, under the first Lloyd George Act, I regard it as most unfair that others who have contributed only a few years and many not at all should get the increase at 65. I have been unable to work since May, 1937, through illness and ever since been under the doctor with heart trouble and rupture on which the doctors will not operate; also my wife has been in indifferent health for some years…why should not all over 65 get the increase on production of a doctor's certificate certifying us as unable to work?
I have letters from men and women complaining of asthma, bronchitis and silicosis who are walking tragedies in the area I represent. Yet some people have the audacity to suggest they should go on working after 65 years.
Fortunately, this suggestion is out of accord and harmony with Labour's real

policy. Here is Labour's real policy as set out in a statement in April, 1949, on page 23 of "Labour Believes in Britain":
If the nation is to achieve and maintain prosperity, we must encourage more of our older people to carry on active work. Many old people themselves wish to do this. But…
—and this is the point—
…those who wish to retire must have full freedom to do so. It would be completely contrary to Labour's policy to get any of the old folk to work against their will.
Surely that, logically, means that the pension should be adequate and at the age of 65 years. The Beveridge Report stresses the need for adequacy of benefit. It says that the flat rate of benefit should be sufficient without further resources to provide the minimum needed for subsistence in all normal cases. The Minister of National Insurance implemented the principles by fixing the benefits at 31 per cent. over 1938 prices, and this should be the basis for fixing the benefits at the present time. According to the Library, who have been good enough to obtain this statistical information for me, the cost of living has gone up 97 per cent. since 1938, and in addition one should remember that that is only measured over a limited field of consumer goods. Therefore, bearing in mind that the old age pensioners' needs are relatively small, and that in the main those needs have increased in cost more than the official cost of living, the very minimum increase in pensions should be 97 per cent. over the 1938 figure.
I have now arrived at a period when, as a result of many experiences, I have a certain amount of disillusionment. At the same time, I have great confidence in our form of democracy, but in that democracy it is most important that those who are members of movements which were born out of the aspirations and the needs of the common people of this country should do nothing to undermine the confidence of our people in those movements. Therefore, I hope that between now and the Committee stage, the Minister will be good enough, together with her advisers and the rest of the Cabinet, in particular, to examine all the speeches that are made in this House today so that when the Committee stage is reached we may get the best results from the legislation which is now proposed.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Storey: Like other Members who have spoken, I welcome this Bill as an interim contribution towards meeting the problems of those in receipt of pensions. Some of the proposals are excellent, particularly those for women and children, and the increased increments for those who remain at work. But I must say that I have great doubts whether some of the proposals are sound in principle and make the best use of the money available.
Take, first of all, the increase in the flat rate of benefit for those over 70 years of age. It was noticeable that the right hon. Lady said very little in explanation or in justification of this increase. No one, now that the promise has been made, would oppose the proposals, but I think it is well that we should realise what they mean. Not only is this increase a confession by the Government of their failure to meet the first necessity of any social security scheme—a stable cost of living—not only is it a grave breach of one of the basic principles of social insurance, namely, that there should be a flat rate of benefit for all the principal forms of cessation of earnings, but it is, in my view, a wasteful use of part of the money which is available for alleviating the problems of those who are most in need.
We should always remember that social insurance benefit was never intended to be the sole means of subsistence. It was intended to provide a national minimum which would leave room and encouragement for the individual to make further provision for himself and his family. To the great majority of pensioners, National Insurance is only one of the sources of their income. To increase the flat rate of benefit is simply to spread what should be available to relieve the needs of the most needy, over many who are not in real need and who have other sources of income, and to deprive those who have been prevented from adding to their income of what they might have got if the money had been concentrated upon them.
However, the Government have offered this flat rate of increase and there can be no going back upon it. But in accepting it we should be in no doubt about what we are doing in breaching a principle of National Insurance, and we can comfort ourselves with the

thought that with the rise in the cost of living there will be few who, however great the other provision which they may have made, will not find good use for this additional payment. There will also be some to whom it will mean the difference between drawing or not drawing National Assistance.
I welcome particularly the provisions of the Bill which provide increased increments for those who elect to remain at work. I do not know whether all has been done that can be done. Are those who stay at work going to get the full actuarial value of their additional contributions and of the pensions which they do not draw? This is a matter upon which I believe we should have some assurance, for I feel very strongly that those who are prepared to stay at work when the country is in need of additional labour should earn at least the full actuarial value of what they forgo. I am not one of those who want to see the age of retirement raised. I believe that in most industries, and certainly in my own industry, 65 is a high enough age at which to retire; but in view of the present need for labour we have got to make it possible for those who can and are willing to remain at work to do so.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In which industry is the hon. Gentleman interested?

Mr. Storey: Newspaper production. Those who can and will remain at work should get the highest possible encouragement to do so, and should get the full actuarial value of what they contribute and forgo.
There is one point which should have further consideration. Many employers and employees today run insurance schemes of their own. I hope the day will come when more will be able to do so. Many of these schemes were drawn up in the days when retirement at 65 was desirable so as to make work for the young, and in many of those schemes retirement at 65 was made a condition of membership. In some the conditions can be reviewed by agreement between the parties to the scheme, but I think that others are governed by trust deeds and this is not possible. The Minister might well consider whether in this Bill she might include some enabling Clause


which would make it possible for such schemes to be modified so that they can be brought into line with the provisions of the Bill.
There is another point connected with these supplementary schemes, about which I should like some assurance. All such schemes require the approval of the Inland Revenue, as Income Tax concessions are made to employers because the schemes are for the purpose of providing retirement benefits for their employees. In the past the Inland Revenue has insisted on a provision being included whereby if a member works after the normal pension date the pension shall be withheld until he actually retires. That is unobjectionable if the scheme provides, as the national scheme does, for increased pension from the actual date of retirement, but if it does not it seems desirable that the Inland Revenue should not in present circumstances enforce their requirement. I believe that is the present practice, but I think the position should be made quite clear.
If, on the other hand, the Inland Revenue intend to continue to insist on the pension being withheld, power should be taken to enable those schemes which cannot be amended by agreement, to be amended by providing for pensions being withheld and increments earned by those remaining at work after the normal pension date. I apologise to the House for occupying so much time in raising these two points, but I am deeply interested in these supplementary schemes which I believe are a valuable factor in building up a real partnership between employers and employed. I want there to be no difficulties in their way so that we may have many more such schemes.
I turn now to the proposals concerning the Exchequer contributions to the insurance fund, which I think we are all agreed are the most controversial and difficult parts of the Bill. While all will agree that it is desirable to restrict the growth of the fund which is, as has been pointed out, a constant temptation both to sectional interests among beneficiaries and to raiding Chancellors of the Exchequer or Chancellors of the Exchequer who have a liking for speculating with the funds of their clients, nevertheless I think the Chancellor's proposals go too far. They

are not only a serious breach in another principle of social security—namely, that this must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual—but, what is worse, they break a contract as to the contributions set out in the Act—a contract between the State, the employer and the employed about which the late Minister gave a most definite assurance.
If the fund is to be reduced by reducing contributions, then I cannot help feeling that the only fair basis is to reduce the contributions all round. But that would undoubtedly reduce the volume of our savings and would increase the amount of money in circulation, neither of which is desirable at the present time. When I consider the alternatives and their disadvantages, I am forced to the conclusion that the least evil is not to restrict the growth of the fund to the full extent which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes. Let the Chancellor of the Exchequer withhold the whole of the block grants under paragraph (b) but let him honour in full the contribution set out under paragraph (a) until the date when the review is to be undertaken. By doing so he will maintain the State's contract, will maintain the principles of social security and, over the three-and-a-half years, will achieve two-thirds of the restriction of the fund which he set out to achieve.
Personally, I would rather see the fund increased than incur the disadvantages which I have outlined. But if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared to go so far, then I hope he will do what my right hon. Friend suggested at the beginning of the debate—that he should at any rate withhold the whole of the paragraph (b) block grant and should instead make a very substantial contribution under paragraph (a). I feel that is desirable so that we should maintain the principle upon which the fund is built and, to a very large measure, if not altogether, maintain the sanctity of contract which is laid down in the Act of 1946.
I do not want to take up the time of the House any further, but I would repeat that although I find objection to some of the proposals, the Bill as a whole is a real step forward. I hope it will not be long before it is on the Statute Book. I hope the right hon. Lady will do everything possible to bring it into being at a


date earlier than that at present contemplated.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Wilkes: I was interested in the contention of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey) that we had not applied the money which will go to increasing the basic pension in the most economical way so as to meet the greatest need. It is based upon the supposition that although only 600,000 old age pensioners draw a supplementary pension, those who do not draw it—the vast majority of the three-and-a-half million—are not in the most serious need. But nothing gives me greater concern in my constituency—and I think it is a fairly general experience among hon. Members—than to see that many of those who do most need an increase in their pensions are precisely the people who will not go and ask.
I, therefore, welcome the fact that the Government have taken into consideration the psychology of the proud poor and have granted a basic increase. Incidentally, in another sphere of pensions—war pensions—where the basic pension has been kept fairly static but where great increases have been made in the supplementary pensions, we on this side of the House have been attacked on precisely the opposite grounds to those advanced by the hon. Member for Stretford.
Be that as it may, I want to refer to the argument of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), who opened for the Opposition in this debate. I thought he vastly over-estimated the cost of extending the increased pensions to men below 70 and women below 65. It is within the memory of the House that he said it would be a very great cost. But is it really so? On 19th April the Minister of National Insurance herself gave the answer that the cost of applying the increases to all old age pensioners—to men below 70 and to women below 65—would be £10 million immediately. She said that a universal increase of the basic pension would cost £15 million per year in 15 years time, rising to a cost of some £17 million per year in 25 years time.
I cannot see that that is such a great sum to pay each year for the sure knowledge which it would give to hon. Members on both sides of the House that grim

and harsh necessity had been banished from the homes of the aged. I feel that a great opportunity has been lost here. If it had been explained bluntly to the people of this country that another few pence upon petrol or even another 2d. or 3d. on Income Tax, whatever it might have been, was specifically to go for the aged so that they would be well looked after, then I am sure the country would have responded. Indeed, I still have hopes in that direction.
May I now refer to the delay in the implementation of the Bill? We have heard a lot about forms to be printed, books to be brought in and books to be sent out, the large number of books in circulation and so on; but even being as considerate as I can to the arguments which have been advanced, I am still not convinced that such a routine, such an administrative job, requires six whole months. I hope that when the Government spokesman replies to the debate we shall be given some sort of assurance that although 1st October is laid down at the moment as the date on which the scheme will start, nevertheless the scheme will be pushed ahead with all speed and, if it should prove possible, as a matter of urgency, to introduce it on, say, 1st September, or 1st August—for every month is important—then that will be done. I think that some pledge such as that should be given.
I want to refer to something which is, perhaps, a constituency matter; and yet I do not really believe it is, because I think it is of rather wider import, and touches the country in a large number of areas. There are a large number of areas, the former distressed areas now called the Development Areas, where the average amount of unemployment has quite considerably increased over the national average of 1½ per cent. Millions of people live in those areas—the shipbuilding areas, the coal mining areas, the former distressed areas. The people who live in them have had a very hard life, for heavy industry is a very hard life indeed. And yet, for example, in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where we have approximately 5,000 unemployed, and where the slack in unemployment has never been fully taken up, so that we have never had a labour shortage such as is common in Coventry, or Birmingham, or in the south country, it would be


almost impossible for the aged to stay at work and to earn their increased increments.
I found the Minister thoroughly academic on this matter—of the old people out of employment coming back, and all those people in employment upon reaching the age of 65 just being allowed blithely to continue. It was thoroughly academic and bore no relation to what happens. When a man reaches the age of 65, he is thrown out on his neck. He has no option, in a large number of cases within my experience. What is required for an opportunity for the old folk to earn more, is a complete revolution on the part of the employers, local authorities and Government Departments in their attitude to the employment of aged folk.
In the Development Areas, where we have quite a large number of able-bodied folk who are not enjoying the benefits of full employment—it is quite true it is only, perhaps, 3 or 4 per cent., but it is still a considerable amount over the national average of 1½ per cent.—it is going to be very difficult for the old people to come back into employment, or to continue in their employment. I do ask the Minister to make a special appeal to all those who, in the Development Areas, employ labour, to take them on, and to stress how important it is from a humanitarian point of view that the opportunity to earn these increased increments should not be denied to tens of thousands of old age pensioners merely through the geographical accident that they live in Development Areas where there is a higher rate of unemployment.
We in this House are taking the view which is, in my view, the correct one, that the people who are suffering most in these days of rising prices are the people with large families—the family man and family woman. Consequently we have so arranged our national finances that this year the man earning between £800 and £1,000 a year with two children will actually pay less Income Tax than he was paying last year—and a very good thing, too. We have so arranged our finances that whatever the status of the wage earner, whether he be sick or unemployed, some help will be given to him, whether only half a crown or a few shillings a week, in the shape of increased allowances for the children.
Every credit goes to the Government for recognising that the responsibility of bringing up a family, with the prices of children's boots and shoes and coats as they are, is a very real hardship. All credit to the Government. But there is one point on which I think the present arrangements and provisions should be improved. Bearing in mind that the raising of young children is the problem facing the family man and woman today, is it logical, can it be justified on any ground whatsoever, that the widowed mother should be allowed to earn only exactly the same amount of money in a job, without her pension or allowances being touched, as the widow without any children? Is that logical? Take a widow with two children. She can earn up to 40s. before her pension and allowances are touched. A widow with no children at all can also earn up to £2 without her pension and allowances being touched. I cannot see the logic of that.
This is not a case for increasing widow's allowances. It is a case for increasing the widowed mother's allowances, and I think that there is every case for allowing her to earn £2 10s. or £3 a week, with the responsibility of bringing up a young family today, before her allowances and pension are touched. I cannot see the logic of putting those with children and those without children, on precisely the same footing in this or, indeed, in any other respect. I do hope, therefore, that when this Bill goes to Committee it will be possible to deal with this and other related points.
My final word is this. I think it is becoming increasingly recognised that old age pensions are a dividend on production. It is becoming increasingly recognised that the efforts of our present generation will determine the level at which the old folk will live in 10, 20, 30 years' time. It is becoming recognised that on the young of today, on how they work and how they are allowed to work, and how they face life and the responsibilities of life, depend the standards of living that they will enjoy when they are old and beyond work.
I therefore hope that it will be possible to increase the basic pension to all, even though the cost be £10 million a year, because that will be a guarantee and earnest to all young people in industry


today that we have a Government who are determined, within the limits of the present very difficult situation, to do all they can to help our old folk, and thus encourage the young folk in the factories and in the fields, to carry the burden and the heat of the industrial struggle.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: In following the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Type, Central (Mr. Wilkes), I should like to say that with a good deal of what he has said I personally agree. I put down a Motion on the Order Paper the other day.

[That this House regrets the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not fully appreciated the plight of old age pensioners due to the alarming rise in the cost of living.]

I was flooded in consequence with a great number of letters from all over the United Kingdom, from various people of various ages, upon this subject of the cost of living and the old age pension.

The point I particularly wish to make is the point the hon. Member mentioned, that a revolutionary approach has to be made to the question of the employment of people of a certain age. Certain of the letters which I received had nothing to do with the question of the old age pension or with people who have reached the age at which they can draw the old age pension. They came from people of 48, 49 and 50 who said that when they had applied to be taken on at certain jobs, the Government and the rest, as the case may have been, replied, "You are too old to do it." Therefore, if we are to do anything in this Bill, a large measure of which I warmly welcome, in trying to get more people into employment, then these other matters of the employment of people still younger should be looked into by the different Departments of State concerned.

I rise tonight to make three points, which I shall make as briefly as possible. First, in a slight interchange between the Minister and myself at the beginning of the debate either there was a misunderstanding or perhaps she did not want to give the answer. I want to put this as fairly as possible. She said that one of the considerations she had taken into account in approaching this Bill was the greater expectation of life; that the expectation was so much at the age of 60

for women and so much at the age of 65 for men. I interrupted to ask: "What is the expectation at the age of 65 and 70 respectively?" I am quite certain that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will not agree with the quick reply given by the Minister, "Well, that is a very simple calculation which you can do for yourself." No doubt one can make the calculation oneself, but the reason I was trying to get the information was to show that it is not so simple a calculation, as I think the Financial Secretary knows full well.

Secondly, I hope the Minister and those concerned will look into the point already made on the question of supplementary pension funds. A great number of these funds have naturally been brought into force with the intention of having a retirement age of 65. I agree with the principle of a retirement age of 65, but where it is necessary in the interests of the country for people to work for a few more years, some adjustments can be made whereby, in co-operation with the Inland Revenue, it will not mean that these people do not accept the pension or if they do accept the pension that they have to retire from their employment.

Lastly, I come to the major reasons why I wish to take part in this debate. In introducing the Bill the Minister pointed to the great social fabric that has been woven in the United Kingdom, to the extent to which it had been raised, and to its volume, but she said very little indeed about the depreciation of the purchasing power of our money. I do not wish to keep the House for long on this point; I may have the good fortune to be able to raise it on the Finance Bill. The right hon. Lady also referred to the fact that the Bill was designed in conformity with the general expression of the Budget. Is that the case? Hon. Members have already expressed concern about the cost of living today, and the minister also referred to it.

Let us not forget that on page 41 of the Economic Survey for 1951—which is also part of the Budget design—it says, in effect, that to buy the same amount of goods for personal consumption our people will pay £600 million more in 1951–52. That will make itself felt on all those with fixed incomes—old age pensioners, and the rest. If that fact has not been related, in a proper fashion not


merely to the likely rise in the cost of living but to the actual rise which the Chancellor suggested will take place, a deplorable state of affairs will result.

I am convinced in my own mind that all hon. Members have a great feeling for the old people. Perhaps they realise that if they live long enough they will be old themselves, and therefore they are insuring themselves. There is no doubt that at this very moment acute hardship and suffering are taking place, and if there is that additional burden of £600 million that hardship will grow. Therefore, in welcoming a good deal of this Bill, I must reserve the challenge I may make when I see what is to be provided under National Assistance in the future.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: It is always a pleasure to me to take part in a debate in which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), opens for the Opposition. I think it is the wealth of knowledge and depth of experience that he obtained when at the Home Office in the early part of 1941, 1942 and 1943 that enables him to put his points so that they appear to be non-controversial until they are analysed closely. Therefore, at the onset I want to deal with one or two things that he said, and to tell him what I agree with and what I disagree with.
He first argued that a revision of existing superannuation schemes was essential. With that I am in complete agreement, because if this Bill is to do what it proposes, there will have to be some revision of the existing superannuation schemes in all departments. He also referred to a further increase in the retirement age at a subsequent date. I must say, I completely disagree with him there. That is certainly contrary to the policy of his own party, and in direct opposition to the policy outlined by the Labour Party. We cannot agree with that. In fact, we do not agree with the increased retirement age contained in the Bill, with which I shall deal in a few moments.
The right hon. Gentleman then said that the proposals of the Bill should be put into operation as soon as practicable. With that we are in complete agreement. I know that there are administrative difficulties. But there were administrative

difficulties in 1948; we faced those difficulties and brought part of the 1948 Act into operation on 6th October, and I think that can be done on this occasion.
The right hon. Gentleman reinforced the Minister in saying that the National Assistance scale should be increased so as to be comparable with the increased basic pension. We are in complete agreement with him there, but one of my regrets on this aspect in dealing with old-age pensions is that, no matter whether it be the Conservative Party or the Labour Party that is in power—and I say this with the greatest respect to the Government—from time to time we have to go cap in hand begging for something that ought to be given by a generous hand to old people. Society is so constituted that we have to do that.
Next the right hon. Gentleman said that the Exchequer grant should remain constant in amount. I entirely agree, subject to one thing: that the Exchequer grant is sufficient to help the old-age pensioners to live at a decent standard of life. Do not keep it at the lowest. Keep it at the highest in order that the people can obtain from their pensions the benefit they are entitled to for services rendered to industry and the country.
I have to speak on the Bill in accordance with my convictions, and I begin by saying that I cannot give my wholehearted support to the Bill now before the House. That does not mean that I shall vote against it. I think it was George Bernard Shaw who said, "When you get a perfect Bill, you get a perfect nuisance." This Bill is far from perfect, and our job during its remaining stages is to bring it more into conformity with the wishes of both sides of the House and of the old age pensioners. I must inform the Minister in charge of the Bill that we shall make attempts to improve the Bill as it goes through its various stages. I am not criticising the right hon. Lady, and my criticism does not reflect any discredit upon her, but upon another Department of State, which I had mentioned before and which I do not wish to mention at the moment. We have a saying in Lancashire, "Speak your mind, yet be kind; give good advice, and yet be nice." I am going to speak my mind and try to be kind and nice.
My first complaint of the contents of the Bill is that it differentiates in the age


groups. I am profoundly concerned at this, departure from the original policy outlined many years ago, and that the old age pensioners of this country should be split up into age groups by raising the age of retirement from 65 to 70 years for men and from 60 to 65 years for women. To be quite frank, I never dreamed that I would live to see the day when we should be increasing the retirement age in this country. The proposals in the Bill are the proposals which the Government are presenting to us, and we have to face them with courage and human understanding. So far, with few exceptions the speeches have been dealing with the reports of actuaries, but, to me, the problem of the old age pensioners and their requirements is an intense human problem. Whatever way we try to approach it, we cannot get away from the fact that it is an intense human problem, and we have to deal with it, with human understanding.
We have to remember that these people, the majority of whom will be affected by the Bill, have no trade union behind them, but they have the gallant and courageous efforts of past members of the great trade union movement behind them, and for that reason they are entitled to have someone to voice their opinion. They have only their associations which appeal to the Departments from time to time. They endeavour in every constitutional way to bring to the notice of the Departments concerned the problems with which they are confronted. We have a statutory obligation and the Minister has a statutory obligation resting upon her. We are charged with the task of looking after the social and economic welfare of the old age pensioners.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

6.5 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1951.
2. Supplies and Services (Defence Purposes) Act, 1951.
3. Falkirk Burgh Extension, etc., Order Confirmation Act, 1951.
4. Lloyds Act, 1951.
5. Oxford Motor Services Act, 1951.
6. City of London (Central Criminal Court) Act, 1951.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers)Act, 1919:

Bishops (Retirement) Measure, 1951.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

6.19 p.m.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. Tom Brown: The interruption was born of tradition and, therefore, one cannot complain. I was saying that the associations which represents the old folk of this country make representations from time to time to the various statutory bodies, pleading that their social and economic welfare should receive attention. The question we have to ask ourselves in considering this Bill is—are we, as Members of this House, by this Measure fulfilling our statutory and moral obligations? That is a very important question. I say very emphatically—now I am voicing my own opinion—that we are not. The Measure should go further than is proposed.
My criticisms come under two or three heads. I consider it morally wrong to draw a line of demarcation between the age groups. That has never been done before in the history of legislation in this country, but the Bill now separates one section of the old age pensioners from another, which is wrong. There are several reasons why the basic rate has been increased, but the main one is to help old age pensioners to meet the rise in the cost of living since 1946. It is not my intention to go over the incidence of the rise in the cost of living because


that was very fully stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), but why should we make any difference between the age groups? All old age pensioners have to buy in the same market; they cannot select a different market because their income is lower than that of their next door neighbour; and I consider that all who are now in receipt of old age pensions should be treated alike.
The purpose of the change appears simply to be to compel the lower age groups to seek employment in industry or to remain in industry after the age of 60 or 65. But they cannot get employment. I have been trying to obtain evidence to support the assumption that they can continue in work, but there is not the slightest evidence. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, and many other hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House have received letter after letter from men and women who want to continue after the age of 60 and 65, and they are already telling us that employers are saying that they must retire at the age of 60 or 65. This happens in nationalised industries. I am not blaming private enterprise entirely. I sometimes think that some aspects of private enterprise are more sympathetic towards old age pensioners than are the nationalised industries. I am bound to admit that.
However, there are industries which are telling old people that they cannot continue after 60 or 65. As I said on 13th April, 1951, when speaking on the Motion dealing with the employment of the elderly and middle-aged, we now have insurance companies demanding higher premiums from employers of labour if they allow people to continue at work after the age of 60 and 65. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North, has suggested that we need to overhaul the superannuation conditions applied to men and women in industry. Many insurance companies have been demanding higher premiums for men over 65 who are employed and, as I said on 13th April, that is a bad policy and contrary to public interest.
The cost is one reason which has been given against treating all old age pensioners alike. We have been told that it would cost too much if we increased

the basic rate of every old age pensioner. Surely that cannot have any weight or force in argument. What is the cost? A few days ago a Question was put to the Minister asking what the cost would be of extending the proposed increases in retirement pensions to men aged from 65 to 70 and women from 60 to 65. The written answer said:
The annual cost to the National Insurance Fund to extending to men below 70 years of age and women below 65 years the increases in retirement pensions which are proposed for men and women who have reached those ages would be just under £10 million immediately, rising to £15 million in 15 years' time and to £16–£17 million in 25 years: but if, as is probable, the effect were to encourage earlier retirement than at present, the cost would be greater. If the cost were spread uniformly over all contributors without any additional contributions by the Exchequer, it would mean an immediate addition of between 2d. and 2½d. to contributions and more in later years as the emerging cost of pensions increased."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th April, 1951: Vol. 486, c. 195–6.]
Surely in a Budget of £4,000 million we could find a further £10 million in order to treat all these people alike. I plead with the Minister not to close her mind to this. This may be my swan-song on the subject of old age pensions, and I plead with her not to close her ears to the arguments which will be put forward today and during the Committee stage.
My next criticism is that the Bill contains no reference to differential occupations. In view of the Government's decision to raise the retirement age, that is a matter of vital importance. I want the Minister to listen to what I have to say. This is a very important matter, especially to those who have been employed in heavy industries like mining, steel, some types of dock work, cotton and jute. However much we may desire it because of the position in which we find ourselves, we cannot expect men in the mining and steel industries to continue until they reach 70.
I have been fighting with my conscience for the last few days. The retiring age for the miner has now been fixed at 55. That has not been done in a half-hearted manner; the age has been fixed after very detailed and continuous examination and the work that the man has to do has been taken into consideration. During the last 25 or 30 years—again I am not complaining—work in the mining industry has been highly intensified by


mechanisation. Men are now working in dust-laden atmosphere and high temperatures. In many deep mines today, particularly in my county, men are working in temperatures of 110 to 120 degrees.
We tried an experiment. It was not carried out by the Federation or by a company, it was the responsibility of a highly eminent man, Professor Wheeler. It was to try to find out what weight a man lost at the coal face in the process of six-and-a-half to seven hours' work. As the result of that minute examination we found that men lost from 7½ lb. to 11 lb. in weight every day they descended the shaft. Can anybody in this House, or anybody outside, put forward the argument with any sincerity that we ought to ask those men to continue working until the age of 70? That is an important point.
When I compare the retirement age of teachers, members of the police force and civil servants under their superannuation schemes with the retirement age of workers in heavy industry, I am amazed at the mentality of the people who fix the age of retirement for the men employed in heavy industries. I hope the House will not misunderstand me. This is not put forward from jealousy of those people who have greater benefits than the industrial workers. Rather is it righteous indignation at the difference between sections of the workers, each playing their part in the national life. I am well aware that we cannot all be teachers and policemen and civil servants but, if we are sensible, if we realise our moral responsibility, we can aim at lessening the gap which affects sections of the industry. On that point I appeal to the Minister to give consideration to differential occupations.
I know that arguments have been advanced, and will continue to be advanced, that men who have been at the coal face should be found less arduous work when they are growing older. We have tried that. It should be remembered, however, that some miners have had accidents and are unable to do their pre-accident job and that these are found work of a lighter character, and rightly so. That being so, the middle-aged and the elderly cannot be found jobs for which they are suited after working such a strenuous life at the coal face underground.
If the right hon. Lady the Minister of National Insurance wants any evidence of that, let her go to the mining villages of South Wales, let her go into North-West Lancashire, North-East Durham, and there she will find sufficient evidence.

Mr. Ellis Smith: And North Stafford.

Mr. Brown: There she will find miners suffering from silicosis who are prevented from going back to their pre-injury occupation. I know the Minister is intensely human on these matters and I hope she will pay due attention to the points I have raised. I also hope that when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill she will give sympathetic hearing to the Amendments we shall put forward. In conclusion, while I am profoundly convinced that I cannot accept the Bill in its entirety, I plead that the representations made to the right hon. Lady and to her Department and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear fruit as this Bill goes through its Committee stage.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: I feel sure that there is the deepest concern for the old age pensioners on both sides of the House. So far as it goes, this Bill will be heartily welcomed as some contribution towards the relief of the old age pensioners. The background problem is, of course, the growing proportion of elderly people and the growing cost of pensions to the community. The question we have to consider, therefore, is how that is to be met. Can it be met solely by increased Exchequer grants, however they may be made, or can it be met by more elderly people working to a greater age?
I believe that, to a certain extent, it can be met, and must be met, by those who are able and willing to work being encouraged to do so. However, I disagree strongly with the suggestion that there should be an increase in the retirement age. If it is meant that in certain occupations there should not be compulsory retirement at a certain age, that is another matter and I would agree with it. I do not know to what extent, by legislation, one can alter the existing state of affairs where, in a number of occupations, men and women—particularly men—have to retire at 60 or 65, although they are willing


and able to continue working. But that is not affected by this Bill and I do not think that was intended when the suggestion was made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), that the retirement age should be increased. Generally speaking, so far as pensions are concerned, I hope the retirement age will not be increased.
The way to deal with the problem is to encourage in every way one can, the continuance at work of those who are willing and able to do so. I do not suggest that financial inducements are the only things that count. Some men who like their jobs would go on until 70 and over. I know cases of men continuing until 80. They do so because they like to go on working, and it is not a question of financial inducement. But there are some cases where men and women are discouraged from continuing to work under the present system. The time has arrived when we should consider not merely increasing the amount of permissible earnings to £2, but of abolishing the means test or, as it should be called, the needs test.

Mr. Molson: The means test?

Mr. Wade: Yes, it is loosely called the means test.

Mr. Manuel: It is quite different from the means test.

Mr. Wade: I am referring to the needs test.

Mr. Summers: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to abandon the principle of retirement?

Mr. Wade: No. I am proposing that instead of the limit of £2 which a pensioner may earn without forfeiting his pension, we should endeavour to simplify the system and allow the pension to be paid whatever the earnings, save for the fact that the pensioner would be subject to Income Tax.
Furthermore I deplore, as some hon. Members have already done, the differentiation in ages. That, again, I think should be seriously reconsidered. A number of anomalies have grown up. There is the case, for instance, of a wife who is older than her husband; she has passed the age of 65 although he has not reached it, and she is not separately

insured. I think I am right in saying that a wife in that position gets no pension until her husband is 65. In some of these cases which have been brought to my notice, the couples are struggling along as best they can, with neither of them in good health, until the husband reaches the age of 65. These illustrations suggest that the time has arrived when we might have a general inquiry into these various anomalies, into the whole question of encouraging those who are able and willing to remain at work to do so, and into the whole question of the differentiation in ages.
I hope we shall very soon know what the National Assistance rates are to be. A misunderstanding has arisen to the effect that the new benefit will mean nothing because it will be evened out by a reduction in the amount of National Assistance payments. We know that that is not intended, but a number of old age pensioners are under the impression that they will not be any better off as a result of the increased benefits because they will get less from National Assistance. I think they are mistaken, but the sooner the position is made absolutely clear, the better.
Finally, there is the time factor. Many pensioners feel that the Bill is merely making up to a limited extent for the rising cost of living, that they are merely getting a little extra to meet the already increasing difficulty of making ends meet, of paying for the necessities of life. They feel rather sore that the Bill will not come into effect until October. I think that what the Government are attempting to do is the very least they can do for the benefit of these elderly people, who are undoubtedly suffering great hardships. I hope that these benefits will be introduced as quickly as possible.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) has put forward two suggestions, in neither of which would he carry the House with him. I am rather surprised that a Member on the Liberal benches should put forward the view, flying in the face of the Beveridge Report, that we should discontinue the principle of retirement as a condition of retirement pension, and should return to the old scheme of drawing contributory pensions on reaching a given pensionable age.


The total abolition of the earnings rule would surely mean that everyone, on reaching pensionable age, would formally retire in order to draw the retirement pension, and could then continue at work with their earnings as a supplement to their retirement or old age pensions. That is not a principle to which we wish to return.
All of us saw the lack of logic and the failure to satisfy the social need of insured persons when men and women in full employment, able to earn a full week's wage and carry on as if they had not passed pensionable age, were drawing a contributory pension in addition to their normal earnings. We wish to retain the principle of retirement as a condition of retirement pension, but at the same time we do not wish—the Beveridge Report never suggested that we should do so—to regard retirement from regular work as a surrender of all activity and interest in life except the fireside and the carpet slippers.

Mr. Messer: Does my hon. Friend think it is right for those who are receiving superannuation to draw wages?

Mr. Houghton: I do not know whether that is general, but, certainly in the public service, anyone who is in receipt of a vocational retirement pension from the State, cannot continue to work in the public service and draw a pension in addition to wages. One is limited by the Act of 1834 to a total emolument not exceeding the pay he was getting at the time he retired.

Mr. Messer: That is not the case in the public service. I can tell my hon. Friend of a clerk of a county council who is getting his salary and his superannuation.

Mr. Houghton: That must be very unusual indeed. It is, surely, a condition of most superannuation schemes that if a person continues beyond the normal superannuation age, the payment of his pension is deferred or, if it is paid at all, it is only to make good the gap between his earnings in a lower paid post and his total earnings before reaching superannuation age. It is somewhat difficult to explain, but the effect is that no person who remains in employment after reaching superannuation age gets more in total pay than he was getting beforehand.

Sir Peter Bennett: The hon. Member is citing the case of a person who remains in the same service. That does not prevent a person from taking his pension from the service in which he has been employed until superannuation age, and getting an appointment elsewhere, when no account whatever is taken of any pension he receives. Nor have I ever heard that that pension is stopped because he has a job outside in industry.

Mr. Houghton: I quite agree that where a person who draws vocational pension gets employment in another industry or with another employer, there is nothing to deprive him of his pension while he is earning money in some other organisation. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides will appreciate the difficulty for anyone of depriving a person of a vocational pension for which he may have contributed directly or indirectly during a long period of service and to taking away the pension because, after retirement, the pensioner obtained work elsewhere.

Mr. Manuel: Mr. Manuel rose——

Sir P. Bennett: Sir P. Bennett rose——

Mr. Houghton: I cannot give way. I am standing in the way of others who wish to follow me, and I have no desire to take up a disproportionate amount of time.
The point which we are now discussing is not really important. [Hon. Members: "Oh!"] It is not important, because I do not think that the general consensus of opinion in the House would seek to associate itself with the opinion of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West.

Mr. Manuel: We cannot stop civil servants and others from working after retirement age and earning, in many cases, more than they earned previously.

Mr. Houghton: I do not think we wish to reverse Beveridge on the fundamental principle of the present National Insurance Scheme, which lays down retirement from regular work as a condition of drawing retirement pension. We associate ourselves with Beveridge, who said that even after retirement from regular work a retirement pensioner should be allowed some flexibility of employment—part-time, marginal, supplementary or whatever other word is appropriate to the type


of employment—which would allow a retired man or woman to earn a reasonable amount in addition to retirement pension, without coming up against another principle, which has already been mentioned from these benches. That is that retirement pension should not be a supplement to earnings. The trade unions would certainly look with some anxiety at any proposal to abolish the earnings rule entirely, which might bring many retired workers into the field of industry, perhaps ready and willing to work for less than the trade union rate, who might be easy prey for unscrupulous employers who would take advantage of them.
Nor do I think we should associate ourselves with the second suggestion the hon. Member made, that if the wife is older than the husband, pension should be paid to her, not in her own right, but, presumably, by reason of her husband's insurance, on reaching pensionable age in her case, irrespective of whether her husband was under pensionable age and still at work. The essential condition of the retirement pension is that it should be a replacement of loss of earning power and if the husband is the wage-earner and is able to continue at work—he may not have reached retirement age—there seems to be no case for paying the pension to him, or his wife, merely because she is a little older than he is.

Mr. Wade: How would the hon. Member apply that in cases where the husband is unable to continue work through sickness?

Mr. Houghton: In such a case, obviously, the husband would draw sickness benefit and get an allowance for the wife in the normal way.
My main point in rising to make a contribution to the debate was to deal with the one proposal in the Bill which has been the subject of blistering criticism from this side of the House. It relates to the National Insurance Fund. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), quoted the remarks, to which it was very painful for us on these benches to listen, of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who suggested in his resignation speech earlier in the week that the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the curb on the growth of the National

Insurance Fund was a means of stealing £100 million a year from the Fund and that the re-armament of Great Britain was
financed out of the contributions that the workers have paid into the fund in order to protect themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 40.]
There was some demur on these benches when that statement was made and I think it right that a categorical repudiation of it should be made from this side of the House. The proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to this fund does not mean that £100 million a year will be stolen, nor does it mean that the money will come out of the contributions of the workers, nor does it mean that the money will go to pay for re-armament. There is a triple repudiation of the gross inaccuracy which was contained in the remarks of my right hon. Friend.
The National Insurance Fund, which, after all, is the revenue and expenditure fund of the National Insurance Scheme, was to get its income from three main sources; the contributions of workers and employers, a contribution from the Exchequer in proportion to the contributions paid by workers and employers, and a block grant addition to the National Insurance Fund of a lump sum, increasing by steps as the years go by, to make special provision in the fund for the exceptional expenditure it would have to bear by paying the higher retirement pensions to large numbers of people who have not made any contributions on the higher scale and who, in most cases, have ceased to make any contributions at all.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North, said that it was agreed in the House at the time of the passing of the 1946 Act that the National Insurance Fund should remain stable and that it was not contemplated on either side of the House that it should grow substantially as the years went by. We have all heard the explanation that the growth of this fund—an increase amounting on the average to £128 million a year—is due entirely, or mainly, to the exceptionally good record that this Government have had in the last six years in connection with full employment. The estimate was made at the time of the passing of the 1946 Act that there would be something like 8½ per cent. unemployment and the Government Actuary made his


calculations on what the fund required on that basis. The experience has been a very much lower percentage of unemployment and the fund has benefited by six years of full employment, which were not fully allowed for in the calculations of the Actuary.
Another contributory factor which has helped the National Insurance Fund is the favourable experience on sickness benefit. That has been lower than was reckoned at the time the fund was constructed. Those two factors have led to this fund growing on an average at the rate of £128 million a year and, therefore, the fund now stands at more than £300 million and is considerably in excess of the stable figure of £100 million at which it was expected to remain from year to year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that this position should be altered and that some check should be placed upon the growth of this fund. He is seeking ways and means of holding the fund stable at about the £100 million which it was expected would be the amount of the fund from year to year. He has made two proposals to that end.

Mr. Peake: May I correct the hon. Member on two figures? I think he will find that the reserve fund stands today at about £470 million and that the Chancellor's proposal is to maintain the reserve fund stable at that level and not to reduce it, as I think the hon. Member suggested, to £100 million.

Mr. Houghton: Yes, I thank the right hon. Gentleman; the Chancellor is to maintain the fund at its present level, which is considerably in excess of the £100 million which was originally in mind. He proposes to do it by a combination of two methods. One is to reduce the proportion of contribution to the National Insurance Fund from the Exchequer and the other is to modify the block grant payment.
It this proposal is liable to misunderstanding, and still more if it is liable to misrepresentation, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should reconsider the way in which he proposes to achieve his purpose. There must be no misunderstanding about what the Chancellor is proposing to do and no ground for misrepresentation. I therefore suggest to the Financial Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, that if there is an alternative way,

which is not open to the misunderstanding which has already arisen, he should seek that way of achieving the purpose which I think will be agreed to on both sides of the House. That is not to let the fund run away with itself, as it will if it is left alone.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Storey) suggested that he would prefer to see the fund increase somewhat rather than modify the proportionate contribution to the National Insurance Fund. In other words, he would be prepared to abolish, for the time being at all events, the block grant contribution to the fund, but to maintain the original proportionate contribution which we find in the 1946 Act. That is one alternative, though it would not achieve the purpose which the Chancellor has in mind. On present levels of unemployment and sickness claims, the fund would still grow and would still be bigger than is desirable in view of the temptations and other evils which the right hon. Member for Leeds, North, suggested might be before successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. I hope that there may be some way of clearing up any doubts about what the Chancellor has in mind.
There is no suggestion whatever that this money which the Chancellor wishes to stop going into the National Insurance Fund will pay for re-armament. It will go to other savings, and can form part of the national resources for capital and other expenditure, or can be used for the redemption of debt. I think that everyone wishes to be clear as to what the Chancellor has in mind about the money which he will stop from going into the fund to prevent its excessive growth.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not that indirectly contribute to the cost of re-armament?

Mr. Houghton: No, it no more does that, than do the insurance contributions which go into the National Insurance Fund and which constitute part of the savings of the nation. It is surely impossible to isolate and identify a particular saving in the national economy and say that it is being devoted to re-armament. It is most important that we should distinguish between the general savings of the nation which we are asking all persons, companies and authorities to make, and expenditure which is specifically allocated to the re-armament programme.
I wish to say a few words on the general issues which have arisen in this debate. There is no doubt that we have all got to do some fresh thinking on the fundamental problems of our social services. I beg my hon. Friends on this side of the House not to lose faith in what this Government are doing, not to lose sight of what they have done and not to evade the sombre issues which now confront the nation in the state of the world today. We must bear all these things in mind. I wish to remind my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and also to remind hon. Members opposite, that the contributory pension was not increased for 20 years. Between 1926 and 1946 there was no increase in it, and that is the period in which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were mostly in power.

Mr. L. M. Lever: There was no contributory pension before 1926.

Mr. Houghton: I agree, but the contributory pension remained the same from 1926 to 1946, notwithstanding all the changes in social and economic conditions which have taken place in the meantime.

Mr. Turton: Was the £ falling in value from 1926 to 1946?

Mr. Houghton: Whether the £ was falling in value or not, the standard of life of the old people had fallen—that was the important consideration—and nothing was done to provide an adequate standard of retirement pension for the working folk between 1926 and 1946. At the time the contributory pension was increased in 1946, there were about 1,750,000 people drawing supplementary pension under the arrangement which was started in 1940.
The problem which confronts us today is to define the priorities in our social services in the conditions of 1951, and we have to do that with fresh minds, with a degree of courage and with the knowledge that we cannot, in present circumstances, do all that we should like to do in all directions at the same time. The hon. Member for Stretford said that this Bill represented the failure of the Labour Government to restrain the rise in the cost of living and to maintain the purchasing power of the £. He did not say a word about the stress and strain of re-armament upon our economy, and

the fundamental disturbance of our whole mode of life, of our whole industrial production and of our whole economy by the pressure of external events and the dread of the final catastrophe in world affairs.
If we overlook that, we shall not understand what this Bill is all about. It is trying to combine the urgent need, in present circumstances, of encouraging all who can continue in work to do so; and at the same time, it is providing a more adequate pension for those who have to give up.

Mr. Ellis Smith: This Bill will in the main apply to industrial workers. Does my hon. Friend, then, agree that every man and woman in this country should be treated in the same way?

Mr. Houghton: No. I think that we shall make a mistake if we regard the whole problem of the position of the workers aged between 65 and 70 years in the case of men and between 60 and 65 years in the case of women, as one relating to workers in heavy industry only. After all, one-third of all the men who have reached the age of 70 are still at work and one-fifth of the women who have reached 65 are still at work. A great many insured workers are in industries which for their physical strain cannot be compared with the mining industry or work in the docks. It is a difficult problem how to differentiate, if differentiation is possible, between certain vocations and others.
The mineworker is fully entitled to say at 65 that he has reached the end of his tether. It would be unreasonable to ask him to carry on in such an arduous and dangerous task. I have the greatest sympathy with him. I have given considerable thought to whether there can be a vocational differentiation or whether there could be a system of medical certification which would enable workers in that age group to qualify for retirement pension no matter in what industry they were serving.
When we consider the problem along these lines, we have to look at the equally moving representations of single women, especially in the textile industries, who at 56 or 58 years of age, have been standing at their looms for 30, 35 or 40 years. In the textile industries especially, the problem of the spinster reaching the age of


60 and being unable to carry on at her job is very difficult. In many cases the spinster is entitled to say, "It is not that I cannot carry on with my industrial job. I am confronted with the difficulties and strain not of one job but of two—doing my work at the mill and, when I have finished there, doing my work at home." The problem of giving a pension at an earlier age in such conditions raises wide issues, and we have to try to bring all these considerations together and try to get our priorities in the right order.
I conclude by praising this Bill for what it contains, by saying that I believe that it is a genuine attempt to combine the two needs that I have mentioned. We must look at it broadly and in the context of the present situation. There will be the opportunity we get during Committee stage to remove some of the errors and anomalies which have been raised. But, fundamentally, this is a sound Bill. I am sure it must have given the Minister great pleasure to introduce it for the things which are welcome, and her disappointment is as great as that of anyone for the features of the Bill which have not met with quite so much approval.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I can make one confident prediction—that my speech will be one of the shortest this evening. I wish to confine myself to one single point and to speak about the guardian's allowance of 12s. a week which is laid down in the Second Schedule of the 1946 Act.
I have always understood that the benefits laid down in the Second Schedule and the contributions imposed by the First Schedule of the 1946 Act were so designed actuarially as to have a ratio between each other, so that, over the long-term, they would, roughly, balance. At any rate, that has been the reason advanced by successive Ministers of Pensions when I and other hon. Members have suggested that this particular amount was inadequate. The Ministers have always taken the line that under Section 39 of the Act, there has to be a periodical actuarial review of the scheme, starting with the interim review to the period 31st March, 1950, and we would have to wait to see what comes from those reviews.
We have had that first review. As many hon. Members have said this evening, we know that, because the rate

of unemployment was very much lower—we are all sensible of the effect of that upon the whole of our economy—than the 8½ per cent. assumed, the Fund has increased by about £130 million a year. It is for that reason that the Chancellor, was able to say, in his Budget Speech, and the right hon. Lady is now able to confirm in this Bill, that the standard rates of contributory retirement pensions for men at the age of 70 and women at the age of 65 are to be increased as is now proposed. But even when that has been done, and when the desirable improvements in the war pensions have been carried through, the Fund will still be left with a profit of something of the order of £100 million a year. I am certain everyone will agree that it would be quite wrong to whittle away that surplus in increased benefits all round.
Nevertheless it seems to me that there is one Second Schedule benefit which is quite indefensibly low. The Bill increases the allowances for a widow with one child from 33s. 6d. to 40s. a week, an increase of about 20 per cent. It increases the supplementary allowances in respect of a first child from 7s. 6d. to 10s. a week, which is an increase of rather over 30 per cent. It increases the supplementary allowances in respect of all children after the first from 5s. to 7s. 6d., which is a 50 per cent. increase.
I asked the right hon. Lady in a Question which she has not yet had time to answer what it would cost to raise the guardian's allowance of 12s. by about 30 per cent. to 16s. a week; and by 50 per cent. exactly to 18s. a week? We know from the report of the Government Actuary that only 8,600 of these guardian's allowances were being paid at 31st March, 1950. So if we were to increase the allowance to the 18s. a week—and I do not suggest that that is necessarily the right figure—it would cost very much less than £150,000 a year.
I have two cases about which I know from my own constituency. There is a girl of 15 who is being looked after by her grandmother, aged 74, because both her parents are dead. There is a boy between 14 and 15 whose parents are both dead. He is being looked after by his elder brother, a young agricultural worker who is earning only about £5 a week. This elder brother has a wife and two young children below school age who


are also calls upon his income. I know what difficulty is being felt in those two homes.
The case of the boy came to light only because the elder brother applied to the education authority for his brother to be exempted from school attendance because, as he said, "I am finding it hard to keep him in clothing." That is perfectly understandable. Goodness knows, it would be difficult to keep a boy of between 14 and 15 in food on 12s. a week, and when one is expected in addition to keep him in clothing I do not see how it can be done. Twelve shillings may buy him a vest, but it certainly will not buy him a shirt. It takes two weeks' allowances to buy a pair of pyjamas and 12 weeks' guardian's allowance to buy a suit. The local authority scales for boarded-out children allow for increases in the cost of living. One local authority estimate which I have seen bases the clothing requirement of a boarded-out child at £12 a year—the equivalent of 20 weeks' guardian's allowance.
This is not perhaps a great matter, it is not a spectacular matter, and it applies only to a few thousand homes; but I am convinced that in every one of those homes the problem is very real and urgent. It is possible to provide for one's own children in these days, though it is hard enough to do that. There is one of the sweetest satisfactions in life in being able to provide for one's own, but one does not experience the same satisfaction in providing, in cases of this kind, for the children of other people. Making personal sacrifices and depriving one's children and wife of some necessity for the sake of another person's child is not so easy, and I am sure that we ought not to make it more difficult than it is already.

7.20 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): As my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) have addressed questions to me about the Insurance Fund, I think I had better intervene briefly at this stage to reply to them. I am sure that the hon. Member for Angus. North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) will forgive me if I leave his rather specialised question to be answered later by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary.
As the Minister explained, there were under the original National Insurance Act two Exchequer contributions to the fund. First, the Exchequer pays a share of the contribution actuarially required to cover the cost of benefits to an entrant into insurance at the age of 16. Second, it bears the whole cost of bringing into full benefit rights at the start of the scheme practically the whole of the population within the field of insurance regardless of their age at that time. These two payments are technically known as the Exchequer Supplement and the Additional Sum. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North, called them the "proportionate grant" and the "block grant."
The proportionate grant, on the basis of the present Act, has been more or less constant at about £96 million a year—about one-fifth of the total actuarial contribution required, since the other four-fifths is provided by the employees' and the employers' contributions. The block grant, on the other hand, is a sum which goes steadily up as the number of pensioners rises. Under the 1946 Act it was fixed, until the end of the sixth full year of the scheme; for 1949–50 it was £40 million, and it rose by £4 million a year thereafter to 1955 when it was due for review. The intention was, of course, that with these two payments the fund itself would remain about constant in amount.
These calculations have been upset for reasons that have been made clear in several speeches today; that is to say, mainly as a result of our success in keeping unemployment down throughout these years to about 1½ per cent. instead of 8½ per cent., which was taken as the basis of these calculations. As a result of that, the fund has actually been rising at the rate of about £140 million a year. It would be perfectly possible, of course, and it would have no injurious financial or economic consequences, to leave all this alone and to let the fund grow at that rate. It would then have continued in effect as one of the various organs of Government saving. We decided, on the whole, not to do that, since this was not the original purpose of the fund.
As a matter of Government accountancy generally, there seemed no good reason for transforming the purpose of the fund altogether simply because our original estimate of unemployment had proved pessimistic.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of our past experience, and in order to safeguard the future, might it not be that we may yet need the balance?

Mr. Jay: No, Sir. I do not think there is any reason to think that we shall need the balance. No good reason has been advanced for piling up this particular fund at this rate. I was going on to say that, in our decision to keep the fund, at its present level, rather than to let it grow further, we were not in the least influenced by the desire to appropriate revenue to the Exchequer, or to finance re-armament, or to ease the budgetary problem, for the simple reason, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby has rightly said, that the operation makes not the slightest contribution to the budgetary problem or to re-armament. I should like to emphasise this point particularly, because even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North, who is so expert on these matters, did not make this point perfectly clear in his speech on the Budget.
At present, the annual addition to the fund is, from the economic point of view, an addition to our national savings, and therefore reduces the budgetary gap and the amount of revenue requiring to be raised by exactly the same amount. If, therefore, we reduce the Exchequer annual payment by £100 million, we reduce the national savings by that amount; and though, therefore, we do not need £100 million of revenue to pay into the fund, we need an equal sum in revenue to add to the Budget surplus and make up for the £100 million drop in national savings.
From the Budget point of view it is merely book-keeping and in no way affects the Budget problem, or the financing of re-armament. It is a total misunderstanding—I say "misunderstanding" rather than "misrepresentation," because I am sure the mistake arises out of confusion rather than malice—to suggest that we have somehow proposed to raid the fund or steal something from it in order to cover our defence bill. It is also a distortion to suggest that the Exchequer, which in any case is only the general taxpayer—as we should do well to remember—is by our proposals reducing its total contribution to the social services as a whole below what was contemplated in 1946 and 1947 when these arrangements were first made. The fact is, of

course, that while, most happily, our expenditure on unemployment has been much lower than was expected, our expenditure on other services, such as health, education and old age pensions, has been growing very rapidly.
I doubt whether the figures are always realised. The social services, including education, insurance, pensions, housing and food subsidies, cost the Exchequer in 1945–46 about £770 million. The comparable figure for 1951–52, including the National Health Service, which had of course by then been added, is £1,550 million, or just about double. The increase in the present year alone, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, is £50 million. As my right hon. Friend said today, social security expenditure on assistance, family allowances and the health services and non-contributory old age pensions is now £340 million higher than was estimated in1945. Most of these services will go on increasing in cost—certainly education and retirement pensions.
If Members will look at the table in the Government Actuary's Report on page 6, they will see that, with the proposals in the Bill on benefits, the total expenditure out of the National Insurance Fund is estimated to rise—and this is on present retirement age practice—from £456 million in 1952–53 to £850 million in 1977–78. The whole of that very considerable increase will fall on the Exchequer—that is to say, the taxpayer—rather than on the contributor.
It was therefore for the following reason that we decided to make the changes proposed in the Budget Speech of my right hon. Friend and embodied in this Bill. As a bookkeeping matter it seemed anomalous to accumulate in a fund which was intended to be constant in amount a sum vastly exceeding what was needed. Nevertheless, even if it is agreed that the present rate of increase is no longer required, it does, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby rightly said, leave open the question of what form the saving in total Exchequer contributions should take. We propose in the Bill that the proportionate grant should come down from £96 million a year to £27 million a year, because, as the Government Actuary points out, that broadly maintains the principle that the rate of contributions—employees, employers and Exchequer together—should be


equated to the value of the benefits at the minimum entry age. But at the same time, as hon. Members will see from the Bill, the block grant after coming down to nothing, in the second half of 1951–52, is then to rise steeply to £10 million, £30 million and £60 million in the three succeeding years, after which it was to be determined by Parliament following the general review. But, as I have said, on our present estimates that block grant looks likely to rise rapidly to over £400 million in 1977–78.
These figures prove the absurdity of any suggestion that we are raiding the fund, or in some way starving the social services, in order to contribute to our programme of other expenditure. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North, while accepting the general accounting argument for an immediate saving in the two grants together, would prefer the proportionate grant, as he calls it, to be left in a higher ratio to the employees' and employers' contribution—I think he referred to a "substantial figure" or something of the kind today—and to offset this for the time being by eliminating the block grant altogether. That is, of course, a perfectly possible alternative.
Though it seems to us that our original principle of treating the fund as an actuarial one was sound, I agree that this is a case where misunderstanding is possible. It is important not merely that justice should be done but that it should appear to be done. We have no strong or dogmatic views on the precise method by which this operation should be carried out, and we did examine several possible alternatives before the Budget.
For those reasons, and since we would wish, on a matter like this, to take account of the views expressed on both sides of this House, I can give the undertaking that we will consider, before the Committee stage of this Bill, whether some such alternative as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby might be preferable. That would, of course, be on two understandings; first, that such an arrangement is only justified as an interim measure, pending the 1954 general review. Second, and I think that we ought to remember this, the absence of a block grant for the next three years, if we did adopt

that plan, must not blind us to what is really the outstanding fact in the whole of the finances of this fund—that after those three years the block grant would suddenly become necessary again at a high figure, which might be a little awkward for the Chancellor of that time perhaps, and would then rise rapidly year by year. If I give that assurance, on the understandings I have just mentioned, I hope the House will agree that we have fairly met the points of view put forward.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the 1946–47 arrangements contemplated that there would be a standard rate of benefit on retirement, for sickness and for unemployment. Under this Bill the standard rate of benefit is increased for pensions, but no increase is made for unemployment or sickness benefit. Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that if, either on this Bill or at a later date, Parliament desires to increase the standard rate of benefit for sickness and unemployment, there is nothing in this financial arrangement, which he has explained so clearly, which will make that improper?

Mr. Jay: I do not think there is anything in this financial arrangement that would do so, but I should not like to give assurances about what future Governments may do in hypothetical situations.

7.35 p.m.

Miss Irene Ward: This Bill has considerable weaknesses. It creates a series of anomalies, and I cannot feel that it really makes a serious contribution to the problem of the old age pensioners faced with the increasing cost of living.
First, I should like to take this opportunity, because I always like to be fair in these matters, to say to the right hon. Lady that I think, from my experience, that the National Assistance Act, 1948, because of its flexibility and the powers contained in it, has been of great benefit to a wide section of the poorest in our community. I should like also to take the opportunity of saying that the administration of that Act has been done as well as is possible in most difficult circumstances. Therefore, when I carry on with my criticisms of the Bill, I do not want the right hon. Lady to think that I have not appreciated the value of that Act in my constituency, where I have seen it in operation.
What I want to say in relation to this Bill is that there is a tendency to put some of the responsibilities which I think should be borne on the Insurance Fund on to the National Assistance Board. Most people would agree with me who have seen the problem of the old age pensioners, particularly social workers, welfare workers attached to local authorities and the W.V.S. who are running the "meals on wheels" scheme and a whole range of other activities in connection with the aged. I think that we have spent too much time in this debate on the more or less academic side of the problem, without emphasising sufficiently the human problem.
When I listened to the explanation of the provisions of this Bill by the right hon. Lady, and to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), it occurred to me that they both regarded this question of retirement pensions from the point of view that a man or woman could say, at the appropriate age, "I intend to continue in employment." If that were so, the whole situation would be altered, but it is not the case. When the right hon. Lady and other hon. Members opposite keep on referring to full employment, I would point out that in my constituency, and indeed on the north-east coast generally, there is a considerable amount of unemployment. I am sure that the same applies to other parts of the country. Therefore, to talk as if full employment is uniform all over the country is not correct. Secondly, to assume that everybody will be able to say, "I shall continue in employment, and therefore increase the increments in my retirement pension" is a fallacy.
In the few remarks I wish to make, that is the point I want to stress. I honestly think that in dealing with this problem it would be wise for all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to see a little more of our industrial processes. I want to ask the right hon. Lady if she agrees, for instance, that all engine-drivers at the age of 65 are fit to go on driving engines until they are 70? Are lorry-drivers engaged on long-distance transport, or bus-drivers, or people who are engaged in ship-repairing yards dealing with the repairing of large tankers, who have to go down inside these vessels to do extremely heavy work—are all these people necessarily fit to extend

their period of work from the age of 65 to 70?
Many hon. Members have referred to the mining industry, and to the men at the coal-face. I do not know whether the right hon. Lady has ever been down a mine or not, but I shall be delighted if she will come to one small pit in my division and go down with me to the coalface. These matters cannot be dealt with in an airy sort of way; they are human problems which have to be faced. I do not think it is always the case that spokesmen for a party express the views of all its members. I do not think that they always necessarily see the industrial problem, either at the coal-face, in the shipyards, on the railways and the like, as we do, and therefore I feel that one of the great weaknesses in this Bill is that the new proposals for increased increments are very much more applicable to the factories and light industries, where men and women can remain working at the bench, than they are to the heavy industries.
That brings me right up against the problem of my particular area, as compared with places like Coventry. Birmingham and all those areas where light industries flourish. If in the heavy industrial areas men are not able to carry on working until the age of 70, they will be at a very great disadvantage compared with the men who carry on working in the areas scheduled for light industries.
Once more, we are likely to come up against the difficulty of the difference between these age groups of women up to 65 and men up to 70 who cannot continue work, as against those who can. The latter would, no doubt, have to go to the National Assistance Board, if they had no other resources. Once more, we, shall emphasise the problem of the heavy industrial areas versus the light industrial areas, and, in areas like that which I represent, we shall have more people going on National Assistance, while, in other areas, people will be drawing considerably increased pensions, because, by the very nature of their occupations, they have been able to carry on working.
That is my great objection to this Bill. In looking round for some means of granting relief from the rising cost of living, we have sacrificed the heavy industrial areas for the benefit of other areas, and therefore, speaking for my own constituency,


I take very great exception to it. There is the further point that, in the heavy industrial areas, where there is a tremendous amount of real skill and craftsmanship, there is very little chance of those people who have ceased working, and to whom the Minister referred, starting work again. They may not want to go back to heavy industrial employment in an area where there is a vast range of heavy industries, but in which light employment inside those heavy industries is negligible. We all know of the difficulties experienced in the mining industry in the past, in which there have been large numbers of men injured or suffering from nystagmus looking for light work who were unable to be absorbed in the mining industry itself. It is a very real problem indeed, and I do not think that this Bill deals with this aspect at all.
I must now say a word about women. In a heavy industrial area where, relatively speaking, there is very little employment for women, we have a large number of women between the ages of 60 and 65—widows and spinsters—who find it very difficult indeed to maintain themselves in employment. I do not think that this Bill satisfactorily covers that sort of case at all. From the point of view of my area and of the two groups of people—women between 60 and 65 and men between 65 and 70—this Bill does very little indeed to meet their very real problem, and I am very disappointed that a Government which has always professed to have been so intensely interested in the problems of the heavy industrial areas could not have done better. I am bound to say that I have on occasions spoken against my own party because I did not think that they were paying sufficient attention to my part of the world, and therefore I am even more disappointed that this aspect of the situation has not been dealt with more adequately by a Labour Government.
I come now to my last point. It concerns the whole problem of old age—such questions as the chronic sick and looking after in their own homes old people who are not in homes provided by local authorities. Some old age pensioners, of course, have got some small background of resources on which they can draw, but it is time that we embarked upon a really up-to-date inquiry so that we might see more clearly in this modern age how the

problem of the increasing cost of living is affecting elderly people. It would be helpful to both sides of the House if we could have a new fact-finding committee so that we might know whether we are really marching in the right direction towards solving the problems of the old people, and I hope that before long the right hon. Lady will decide to do that.
I must express my disappointment about the position of the heavy industrial areas, and I hope that, when a reply comes from the Treasury Bench, somebody will tell us what they have in mind concerning the heavy industrial worker and what range of jobs the Government think these people can carry on until they reach the age of 70. I should also like to know whether the right hon. Lady has any medical proof on this matter. Although I welcome the Bill from many angles, I can only express the hope that, in future, we shall have something more helpful to offer to the heavy industrial areas to deal with the rising cost of living.

7.49 p.m.

Rev. Llywelyn Williams: I consider that I have been very fortunate indeed to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but I hope I shall show an awareness of the fact that there are many other hon. Members who want to speak in this debate. The Minister will have noticed that there is an unusually large number of hon. Members who want to speak on this subject, not because they are so very desirous of exhibiting in their speeches any gifts which they may possess, but because they believe that, in supporting this Bill, they are assisting the solution of some human problems which are regarded as the most serious and far-reaching of our contemporary situation.
There is a large measure of acceptance of the proposals contained in this Bill, and a willingness to admit that it does take a very marked step forward in the direction of the building up of the Welfare State. When we realise that over three million people will benefit from the proposals in this Bill, then I think we have every reason to be proud once again of the vision of our Government and their preparedness to realise the implications of that vision in actual legislation. But there are criticisms which must be offered, and I shall limit myself to just two or three.
I must confess that I do not feel at all happy about the appointed day, 1st October. That date is a very long way off to the old people, and, in the very nature of things, there must be many thousands of people over 70 years of age who will never live to receive the benefits included in the proposals in this Bill. I am not unmindful of the difficulties, and I do not speak as one who is unmindful of them, but I wonder if it is at all possible for the appointed day to be brought nearer to, say, 1st June, or, again, whether on 1st October some retrospective payments might be made. Let us realise that although for the past few days we have enjoyed a very fine spell of weather, on 1st October we shall be entering the period of late autumn and a weary winter, and that, above all, old people need warmth. They need coal, and the price of coal has just gone up again. Naturally, they would like to ensure some stock of coal.
I suggest that this consideration should be borne in mind by the House when we get down to detailed consideration in Committee. I admit that this may be outside the province of this Bill, but I must inform the House that there is a deep sense of resentment in the mining community because miners who have worked for 30, 40 or 50 years producing coal and who have received cheap coal during that period, find themselves on the termination of their employment, whether voluntary or enforced, deprived of a commodity which for so long they have enjoyed at a cheap rate. I think that we should show some imaginative sympathy where questions of privilege are concerned, and that we should not be unduly ready to terminate privileges in this unimaginative way. I admit, of course, that this matter is completely outside the province of the Minister of National Insurance.
I am sure that the Minister will have understood and will have realised forcibly during this debate that the great criticism of this Bill is the differentiation between men and women of 70 and 65 and men and women of 65 and 60, respectively. That is the major criticism we have to offer to this Bill, and it is a criticism that must really be faced. We shall be told that the National Assistance Board is likely in the near future to offer increased allowances commensurate with the increase of basic pensions which men of 65 and women of 60 will not enjoy. That, admittedly, alters things considerably

and mitigates the sharper points of our criticism. But customs and traditions die hard in this country, and no one here will deny that there is a very important difference between the psychological approach of the vast majority of old age pensioners to the receiving of pensions and to their applying for and receiving supplementation from the National Assistance Board.
I am told that the sum involved in this differentiation between the two age groups of pensioners is about £10 million a year. I really wonder whether, in view of all the arguments adduced during this debate, that differentiation can be justified. I fully realise that there must be a new orientation on retirement age in view of the need for more and more production and productivity. I also readily admit that today a man of 65 is considerably younger in capacity and outlook than was a man of the same age 25 years ago. This is attributable to many factors, for some of which we would claim as a Government to be responsible. There are other factors, of course, which are outside the scope of any Government. There is no doubt that better working conditions, shorter hours, better pay, social services, economic security, and medical progress have all contributed to this state of affairs.
But we are increasingly aware that ours is an ageing population and that people must be encouraged to remain at work longer. The Bill proposes inducements to that effect, and we all welcome them. But in the heavy industries the wear and tear in human energy is terrific. There are many men in the mining areas who, although over 65 years of age, are still excellent workers, skilled and conscientious, whose services we could not easily afford to lose. But, by and large, a man who has worked for 50 years in the mining industry, and the majority of those years at the coal face, is entitled to be regarded as having rendered as much service to the community as can be expected from any one of its citizens.
In a mining area, and particularly in a mining valley, alternative employment is simply impossible. The colliery top jobs are taken by the partially disabled miners, of whom there is, unfortunately, such a large number owing to the dangerous and arduous nature of the work. The light industries, which, thanks to the Labour Government, did provide a very useful


diversification of employment in the Development Areas, are running very short of supplies of raw materials, and, in many instances, are in danger of having to close down. The Remploy and Grenfell factories can only employ a fraction of the partially disabled workers. Surely, the Minister will realise that here we are face to face with a very real problem of adjustment.
Finally, I wish to mention another differentiation of, in all conscience, too long standing in our National Insurance Acts in the past. I refer to the differentiation between the wife who is five years or less younger than her husband and the wife who is more than five years younger than her husband. Here are the elements of a Gilbertian situation. One would imagine that there was something sacrosanct in the number five. The governing factor in the case of a married couple is the age and earning capacity of the husband. The fact that the wife is more than five years younger than her husband is surely irrelevant.
We who speak with feeling about these matters of old age pensioners do so because we believe they are the real aristocracy of this country. The men who have hewn coal, produced steel and worked in other industries for 40 or 50 years are people who deserve the best an enlightened legislative assembly can do for them. A nation and a Government can well be tested by the standard of treatment of old people. This Government need not be aghamed, indeed it can be proud of what has been done in that regard. But, if I may quote an old Welsh proverb, "Nid da lle gellir gwell" which means, "It is not good if it can be bettered." I hope that that proverb will always be our watchword in these social matters.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Summers: I hope the hon. Member for Abertillery (Rev. L. Williams) will tell the Prime Minister of the Welsh proverb that he has translated for our benefit, for it seems to me to apply to this Government at the present time. He took pride in what he described as the vision of this Government, but it is only right that it should be noted that if this Bill is passed in its present form—after taking into account the welcome increases provided in it—

the beneficiaries will be substantially worse off than they were when the scheme was first started owing to the deterioration in the value of money. I calculate some 3s. or 4s. a week as the measure of deterioration of the position of people receiving National Insurance benefit under the provisions of this Bill as compared with their position at the time when the original Act was first introduced.
I was very glad to hear the Minister tell us what she did about the National Assistance rates. The only reason why I made an interjection during her speech was because of the statement that it was hoped the change in the rates would be made to coincide with the date when these benefits are to be provided, namely, 1st October, or sooner if possible. I only wanted to be assured that that would not in any way restrict the freedom of the National Assistance Board to bring in improved rates at an earlier date if the real factor, namely, the cost of living, justifies such a course. I hope she realises that this is an intensely human problem which should be related to the cost of living far more than to catching up with changes in the scheme arising out of this Bill. This is another example of what is too frequently prevalent today, namely, not only the spiral of rising prices and rising wages chasing one another but of one form of government expenditure chasing another, and I do not know how far that will go.
I want to bring to the notice of the House three points directly related to this Bill. Considerable comments have been made on the unfortunate effect of dividing old age pensioners into two groups aged 70 and 65, and earnest pleas have been made that the rate at which improved benefits might be drawn should be 65 and not 70 with corresponding ages for women. It has been said it will cost a mere £10 million a year rising to £17 million in 25 years' time.
No hon. Member opposite, however, has faced the fact that if that were done there would at once come forward a claim on the same ground as is now put forward—that there should be no disparity between two types of old age pensioners—that in justice one should not distinguish between a man over 65 precluded from continuing work who draws


a pension and the man who is sick and out of work and unable to draw regular earnings but for different reasons. There were good sound grounds for deciding that the rate of benefit for pension, sickness and unemployment should be uniform when the scheme first came into force. Hon. Members who want to change the date when improved retirement pensions become due under this Bill must in all fairness say whether they are willing to depart from the uniformity of all three main benefits under the Act or whether they are willing to face vastly greater Exchequer costs than the mere £10 million in respect of pensions alone that are affected by this change.
It is a great advantage to have these increments increased, but I am not at all sure the most potent influence upon the decision of people whether to retire or not is not the increasing need for earnings at a time of a rising cost of living. I was very surprised that the Minister, who I know has strong personal views on the subject of equality between men and women and has feminist ideas, should have allowed a Bill to go forward in her name which left the women so much out of account compared with men with regard to the 1s. 6d. increase which can now be earned after payment of 25 contributions.

Dr. Summerskill: I must reply to that, as the hon. Gentleman has criticised my feminism. The woman worker who is in precisely the same position as the man worker in respect of contribution, certainly can earn the same increments.

Mr. Summers: I am well aware of that, but I take exception to the fact that whereas in the past the increment for a man and the increment in respect of his wife have been the same, now the increased increment goes to the man but the increment to the wife remains at the original figure so long as the husband is living. I strongly urge that the 1s. 6d. should be "earnable," if I may use the word, just as much by the wife as by the husband, with the effect that there would be a chance when a man postpones retirement to the age of 70 of earning 80s. pension instead of 75s. as proposed in this Bill.
I welcome the increase to 40s. in casual earnings. It is noteworthy that the average rate of regular earnings since the

original 20s. limit was fixed has increased by some 25s. a week; therefore, to raise the casual earnings by 20s. will leave the pensioner slightly further from the normal level of regular wages than when the original limit was fixed. So I do not think the increase to 40s. need be criticised on that ground. What I would like to see however is the limit tailed off by allowing a person to keep 10s. of the next £1 earned.
There is, however, another and even more important aspect of this question of casual earnings to which no reference has been made today. I refer to the principle of treating each week on its merits. I should like to see a longer period than a week being adopted for this purpose. I am well aware that great administrative difficulty and a serious dilemma are involved. If we allow too long a period to elapse between the earnings of excess wages and the collection of them—or the attempt to collect them—it will be found that they have been spent, and possibly even recourse to National Assistance may be required ultimately.
If, on the other hand, the period is very short, then the recipient of those earnings is not going to declare them—which is exactly what is happening today. There are scores of people who are unwilling to disclose casual earnings because they believe the system is unfair. They would be much more willing, even if the effect meant some sacrifice to themselves, to come forward and declare the casual earnings they had earned over a longer period. At harvest time, for instance, many elderly pensioners feel it is perfectly justifiable for them to go to give a hand in the fields and that they ought not on that account alone to be deemed to be employed, but that they should still be deemed to be retired; and they ought not, in their judgment, to suffer a decrease in their pension on that account.
If it were treated in respect of a month, and the level, instead of being £2 a week, were £8 a month—or possibly an even longer period if administratively it could be worked out—then it would become possible for casual workers at harvest time, and doing special work at Christmas time—such as being Father Christmas in the shops, and the like of it—could be employed without violation to the retirement principle, and the facts of the situation would be willingly disclosed,


and sufficient time allowed afterwards to work off the liability which, for a short period, would have been incurred. I do not believe that it is so completely impossible to devise a system as it is sometimes alleged to be, and I would urge the Minister, who, I believe, would welcome a system of this kind if it were found practicable, to do something along these lines.

Mr. Kirkwood: On conditions, of course, that these people recognised the current rate for the work they were doing. We do not want to introduce cheap labour, or to have advantage taken of them.

Mr. Summers: I am well aware of the fear that an increase in these earnings might lead to its exploitation, but this does not involve an increase in the casual earnings limit at all. What it does do is to allow the limit to be calculated over a slightly longer period than one week with no work thereafter for a certain period, so that no liability taking the period as a whole will be incurred. I know that in agriculture as in other spheres such an arrangement would be welcomed if it could be organised.
The only other thing I want to say is this. The Minister described this as an interim Measure. I assume she had in mind that it was intended to carry us over until the review foreshadowed in 1954. I think that that is a very optimistic prospect. With the rate at which it appears the cost of living is going to rise I doubt very much if any Government will be able to stick to the terms provided under this Bill for all those affected under the National Insurance scheme. That is why I do hope that those who want to see these benefits applied to every retired person from 65 onwards will bear in mind not only the arguments I used earlier—the effect upon employment and sickness rates—but will also bear in mind that if the shoe pinches harder and harder for the next few years, as I believe it is going to do, it will become increasingly difficult to do justice to the most needy, if the principle of uniform treatment of all retired persons is insisted upon irrespective of the consequences. We may well need to help the really needy at considerably greater cost than is foreshadowed in the provisions at the present time, and I hope that that will be borne

in mind, and that the prospective deterioration in our national situation will prompt people to be cautious in the distribution of further money at this stage.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Slater: I have been rather interested in the attitude of the various Members of the Opposition who have spoken in relation to this Bill. Hon. Members opposite have said that they welcome the Bill. That is rather remarkable, considering the attitude of those people in the past. They have been opposed in the past to any introduction of an increase of the basic pension for our aged people in this country, when the Labour Party sought to introduce this policy. It is to the Labour Party, because of all the Measures which they have introduced, especially since they came into power, that the old people ought to be most grateful.
Everyone will agree that there has been much disquiet throughout the country amongst certain sections of the community about the basic pension. I believe that much of the disquiet has been because of the heavy increase that has taken place in the cost of living. The lower income groups are undoubtedly very hard pressed to meet the demands of the day. Like other hon. Members, I have received many complaints about the basic pension and the fact that it is to be for those people who reach the age of 70.
On the face of them, the Minister's new recommendations do carry with them a certain attractiveness. It appears that the will and the power to work up to the age of 70, is to confer certain benefits in monetary value on those who are able to retain their physical ability to work, but I want the House to realise that we must never forget that there are many people in this country who have serious objection to imposing such conditions. To some, such a provision is tantamount to bribery, and it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to remove from the minds of many of those people that such is not the case.
Let me give a simple illustration. I remember many years ago hearing a Methodist minister say that he did not believe in giving prizes to the Sunday school children for reciting monologues on school anniversaries. In his opinion it was wrong because other children in the school who had not the ability or courage and who were for this reason unable to


recite, were denied the opportunity to win prizes. It may be that many people would not agree with that minister.
It may be asked what is the analogy I am seeking to draw. The analogy is simply this. I belong, as is well known by hon. Members on this side of the House, to a heavy industry. I think that anyone will agree that the majority of our men are ready to retire long before they reach the age of 65. As a matter of fact, my district association have for a long time felt that, far from a man being called upon to retire at 65, he ought to be able to retire at 60. I have been informed tonight that the object of the association is that pensions be provided at the age of 55. These men have given of their best in getting coal for the country, and they should not be penalised because they are no longer able to carry on owing to physical weakness.
As one who comes from this basic industry, I feel very much on this question, knowing as I do the effect of this upon many of our aged men in the mining districts. Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions when I ask them to consider, in all seriousness, that almost one-third of a miner's life is spent enveloped in darkness, apart from the dangers he has to face day after day. That is a great sacrifice. I could go on elaborating this by bringing before the House many of the things these men have to encounter, which has been primarily responsible for their ageing prematurely. Where I come from, before I came to the House of Commons, we had what is termed a drift. There were 546 cement steps, and at the end of a day's work at the coal-face a man had that to encounter. To see men between the ages of 50 and 65 enduring that, as I used to see it as a young man, touched me very deeply, and I promised myself that if the time came when I could voice a protest on their behalf, and plead that every consideration be given to them, I would do so.
When those in this basic industry have been called upon to make sacrifices and give of their best, have they not done so? The whole country has recognised that. I therefore think it is not too much to ask that serious consideration be given to this group between 65 and 70. Because of their calling in life they have had to be subjected to the most arduous of tasks, which has rendered them more or less

unable to go that extra part of the way in life.
I should like to quote from the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), on 13th April, when he said:
Retirement is not sought after; let us recognise that. The bulk of the people do not want to retire. They want to keep on doing the things they have been doing and in the way they have been doing them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 1380.]
There is great substance in that, and I echo those sentiments tonight because I believe them to be true. At the same time, I say that we should concede the right that those with physical infirmity should be taken care of properly.
I have the greatest confidence in my right hon. Friend, and I hope she will, as this Bill proceeds—because it is obvious from the speeches made by the Opposition that there will be no Division on the Second Reading—seriously consider the sentiments I have expressed about those in the 65 to 70 age group. Do not let it be said that people who, because of financial hardship, have been forced into endeavouring to continue to work, when all their inclinations and instincts tell them they should retire, are to be penalised. I wish this Bill every success, but I hope that serious consideration will be given to various Amendments that may be put down in order to ease the position of many of our old people.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: One thing, and I believe almost only one thing, is common to both sides of the House tonight, and that is agreement on the decreasing value of pensions. Pensions today will be worth very much less in three months' time, and the Government say that the cost of living will continue to rise. It appears that the 4s. increase at the pensionable age of 70 for men recognises that fact. Then we are told there is the possibility—and evidently the great possibility—of many between the ages of 65 and 70 finding employment. I represent a Glasgow industrial area, and I would say that at least 90 per cent. of my constituents are engaged in one form of industry or another. I believe it will be very difficult, if not almost impossible, for many of these people between 65 and 70 to find employment. What are these people


to do for the next three, four or five years? We must give thought to that question.
Let us assume for a moment that a certain percentage get employment. To encourage employment, the amount which may be earned by a pensioner has been increased from £1 to £2. If a man gets a job at £2 per week his total income will be £2 plus 26s., apart from the wife's allowance, namely, £3 6s. If he gets a job at £3 a week he gets nothing at all for the third pound that he earns; in other words, his pension rate will be 6s. I have tried to check this with the Department and I am told it is correct.
If a man earns £3 10s. a week he is allowed nothing at all, so for the second £1 10s. he is working for 4s. Surely some inducement must be given to these old people if they are to be asked to go out and do their bit in this time of stress and strain. The contribution they are asked to make to the country ought to be a fair contribution according to their earnings. I think we all agree that if a pensioner who earns £3 10s. has £1 6s. deducted, that is not a fair contribution.
In the City of Glasgow we have just concluded the purchase and equipping of two houses, not for the sick poor but for the ordinary poor. We have tried to encourage elderly people who are lonely to go into these large detached houses where they will have comfort in their declining years. These two houses will provide accommodation for 52 persons, 26 per house. The Glasgow Corporation are providing another five, and the total number of people in these five houses will be 81. They are negotiating for another four houses. There are, however, in Glasgow some 1,000 or 2,000 applicants for this sort of accommodation. Why is that? The reason is that most of them cannot afford to live on their pensions. Under present conditions, with the continual rise in the cost of living, we are going to compel most of these people to apply for accommodation through the corporation.
What is the cost? The cost is roughly £4 per person per week. Is that not a good reason for increasing the pension between 65 and 70 where it is necessary, rather than push these people into this accommodation? I ask the Government seriously to consider first, what people

are going to do between the age of 65 and 70 who cannot get work; second, what are people to do who cannot live on the pension; and, third, whether it is worth while offering to people who expect to go out to work a little more for their labour at the end of the week.
There is one further thing which I wish to mention. It is rather extraordinary that a man after he has completed an extra five years of work has an expectation of life of 7½ years. I should like to calculate what we are going to take from that man from 65 to 70 years and what we are going to give him from 70 to 77½ years. I think that we shall find that the State is taking very much more from him than it is giving him back. A woman, on the other hand, who retires at 65 has an expectation of life of 18 years. So we have rather overbalanced the weight on the female side on this occasion. We need to consider that when we are considering the man who goes out to work.
Every Member of this House has sheaves of letters telling him what happens. I had a letter today from a man to whom the Government gives 3d. a week as pocket money. He is not allowed to smoke or go to the pictures or anywhere else. Many of us in this House could talk on this subject for at least an hour, but I shall curtail my remarks as I know that others wish to speak. I have much pleasure in putting these facts before the House.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I know that many of my Scottish colleagues are anxious to make their contribution, and therefore I shall confine myself to one point only. I want to examine briefly the incentive that is being offered to the 65's to continue at work. I should first like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Bill which she has presented today. It has met with a large measure of support from both sides of the House. It is interesting to notice that not one word detrimental to those parts of the Bill dealing with widows and dependant children has been made throughout the entire debate.
Much of the criticism is concentrated on the question of the appointed day, and I hope my right hon. Friend will take note of what has been said with regard to 1st October as the day when these new


pensions are to be paid. There is a very strong feeling, which has been expressed, that the date is too far ahead. The Bulletin of Information which is issued by the Treasury stated in the April issue that import prices had risen from June to December by 14 per cent. The impact of those prices is now being felt, and will continue to be felt more and more by the people of this country. It is worth noting that for the single pensioner the increase of 4s., which is now being given but which will not take effect until 1st October, has already been consumed by the rises that have taken place, That is totally wrong and unjustifiable, and the postponement of the day until 1st October is something that I cannot defend.
There has also been strong criticism of the differential pensions for those at 65 and those at 70. I want to look a little more closely at one aspect of this because the Bill is designed to encourage those who are eligible for pensions at 65 not to claim them, but to continue in work until they are 70. If we want them to continue at work until that age, I submit that we have to ask ourselves, what is the incentive that we are offering to those at 65 to continue until they are 70?
If we take the total of contributions, which would be paid by an individual who did not retire at 65, we find that the total he paid as continued contributions for five years would be £42 at 4s. 11d. per contribution. That would be his total payment, but in addition he would not draw £337 10s., the 26s. over a period of five years, so that he loses, as it were, £379 10s. during those five years. I know, of course, that he is supposed to be working. I do not think that that point arises in the examination I am seeking to make, because I am looking at the question to some extent from the arithmetical point of view, but it does have economic consequences for the individuals. He does not get it, because there is an incentive to draw £2 5s. a week when he attains 70 years of age.
That means he would get £117 per year, but he has lost £379 10s., so that before he overtakes the deficiency he has to draw benefit for over three years. He does not overcome that deficiency until he is 73 years of age, and my right hon. Friend told us today that the potential life at 70 was 7½ years. He reaches 73 before he overcomes the loss which he voluntarily undertook at 65, and then

only 4½ years remain to him. I believe the House will agree that that is wrong. That was in regard to the single man. If we examine this problem in regard to a couple we come to exactly the same finding; the man will be 73 plus before he overcomes the loss of pension.
If we look at it from another point of view, the lack of incentive is still more alarming. My right hon. Friend said that at 65 there was an expectation of life of 12½ years. An individual drawing 26s. a week in the 12½ years of retirement could look forward to receiving a total of £811. We are seeking to encourage people to remain at work until 70 when a pension of £2 5s. will be paid, and at 70 the expectation of life is 7½ years, so that as a result of postponing retirement and paying more into the fund the amount which is drawn is £585. Such a person has a longer working life and at the end of it the total sum is much less than the sum which would have been drawn if retirement had taken place at 65.

Mr. George Thomas: Will my hon. Friend allow me——

Mr. Rankin: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way; I am already condensing what I had intended to say. These figures, which I have worked out as carefully as possible, do not indicate that the incentive to continue after 65 is a very strong one. I believe that there is no way of removing the anomaly where we begin to differentiate in the age at which a pension may be drawn unless we make the increase the same for all who are affected by it. I hope that before we come to the Committee stage my right hon. Friend will consider very seriously, in spite of all that we have heard about financial commitments, the possibility of dating the increase in pension from 65 for men and 60 for women.
I know that that raises the question of cost, but in a written answer on 19th April we were told that the immediate cost would be £10 million, which would mean an increase of between 2d. and 2½d. in contributions. The £10 million which is necessary to wipe out the anomaly could be raised if the Minister exercised the power which she possesses to increase the contribution by 2½d. in this present year. I am sorry if I have gone a few minutes beyond the time I proposed to speak. I apologise if my five minutes


have gone into 10, but very often I have noticed that 15 minutes in this House extend to 45 and I am consoled by the thought that, if I am a sinner, it is on a very small scale.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I hope the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) will forgive me if I do not follow him in great detail. I support much of what he said. He particularly had my support when he refused to give way to his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas).
The right hon. Lady has had very many bouquets and a good many brickbats, mainly from her side of the House. I have one or two criticisms to make of the Bill but they are general rather than particular. To begin with, in order to forestall any criticism from the serried ranks representative of heavy industry opposite, I want to say that I agree with the remarks they have made, and that my remarks apply more to general industry and to light industry in particular. I hope that will save me from being interrupted too often.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) said with regard to the fact that the increment is not to be extended to the wife. The right hon. Lady made a reply to my hon. Friend, but the fact is that this is a new principle which is introduced into this Bill, and she did not attempt in her introductory speech to justify it in any way. I hope we shall be able to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, when he winds up the debate, what are the reasons for this change. It is an innovation and it should not be allowed to get past without any criticism or explanation.
I fully appreciate that it is necessary to retain a maximum earnings allowance if the retirement principle is to be retained. However, there is one type of employment of which no account is taken in the Bill, a type which existed a great deal in the war, namely, half-time work. If we are to get people back into industry to meet the re-armament drive and to maintain the standard of living of our people in future generations, we must make provision for the type of worker who wants to be in the factory for a half-time working week, that is, an average of 20 or 22 hours.
At the moment the earnings rule cuts out that type of employment, not only by the maximum amount of 40s. but also by the limitation of the decision of the arbitrator that only a maximum amount of 12 hours could be worked. The restriction on earnings operates very much against the higher-paid worker who may want to come back into employment on the half-time basis I have mentioned.
I hope it will be possible at some time in this Bill to make provision for the three categories of employment—casual employment, full employment and half-time employment. I throw out as a tentative suggestion that it might be possible to make provision for a basic earnings allowance of, say, 20s., and then, if the Minister considers it necessary, to deduct, say, 3d. for every 1s. earned over that from the pension. By that means we can attract back into employment a great many people who would otherwise be lost to industry. I am thinking particularly of a man who is reaching the end of his normal working life and cannot do a full day's work. Not only would half-time work be of great assistance to him in maintaining his standard of living and in making his contribution to the needs of the nation, but from the point of view of industry half-time work is the easiest type of work to organise.
Another matter which I should like to raise relates to Clause 5. The right hon. Lady gave many reasons why we wanted to attract back into employment people who had retired. She said that many people regretted retirement, and cited letters which had been written to her on the subject. It ought to be possible in the Bill to make permanent provision for those who have retired to come back into employment after a certain interval has elapsed if they so wish. From experience in my own industry, I know that many men want to take a few months' rest on reaching the age of 65. They then find that retirement is not quite as attractive as they expected. It is more for social than economic reasons that they would like to return to employment.
I have in mind a constituent of mine who has written to me. On his retirement he and his wife moved elsewhere. He has now become a widower, finds life lonely and dull, and now seeks my help to find part-time employment. This is a problem although perhaps not a great one, for which we ought to try to make some provision


in the Bill. I hope that both these points may be replied to when the Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate.
The last point I wish to raise is the question of the employer's contributions for workers over the age of 70, and 65 in the case of women. There is a very strong case for this contribution to be waived. Many hon. Members have said how difficult it is for the elderly to find jobs. This is a very serious problem and one with which so far the Ministry of Labour have hardly known how to cope-There is reason for giving encouragement to employers to keep on, and even to find special employment for, men over 70 and women over 65. One particular firm in Staffordshire has made a great effort to start special shops for men of this age. In answer to a question of mine, the right hon. Lady said that this practice might encourage employers to favour the elderly instead of the young, but this argument cannot be carried very far in view of the fact that the whole theme of the Minister's speech was the desirability of retaining the elderly in employment. I hope we may have an answer to these criticisms, either tonight or on the later stages of the Bill.
I should like to add my pleas to those of other hon. Members for bringing forward the date when the scheme comes into operation. I think the right hon. Lady would be well advised to make her plans for that now because, whether she likes it or not, she may find herself with a statutory obligation to do so somewhere about July or August—provided she is still in office. With those few comments, I give the Bill my blessing.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: There has not been much said about the need for spreading earnings over a period. I think that the Beveridge Report agreed that it should be on a three-monthly basis, or something like that, and certainly a weekly basis is inadequate for the purpose.
I with other hon. Members deplore the need for asking the worker to extend his period of work beyond 65 years of age. That is regrettable. We have to face what will be the position in a number of years' time in view of the changed circumstances of life. I do not think that what is attempted in this Bill will satisfy or adequately cover that position. If we are to face up to the financial

necessities of the future, we have to start making preparations, and if the age of retirement is to be raised, I do not think we are attempting it in the right way. My experience in Liverpool must be similar to that of others with experience of heavy industry. The fact is that many who were compelled to retire, even though they were fit to continue work, have no chance of returning to industry now. A man of 65 cannot return to industry in my area. The men of 65 and women of 60 are just as entitled to the extra 4s. as are those of 70 and over.
We must alter the Assistance Board Regulations and scales, and the sooner the better. When we do that, we shall have to recognise that the man of 65 would be entitled to obtain the 4s. under the new scales just as much as the man of 70 is entitled to supplementation. After listening to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, it seemed to me that it would not have been a bad thing to give the extra £10 million to these pensioners.
To leave this change until October is fundamentally wrong. Representations have been made by all the representative associations and federations of pensioners. For some months now they have pressed for something to be done. For them to have to wait for another five months is ridiculous. It is not fair to them. These provisions should be brought into operation by 1st July, and I hope that the Minister will direct her attention to that aspect of the matter.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I do not think that the Minister will be dissatisfied with the general reception which has been given today to her Bill from both sides of the House. The Bill must, of course, be judged against the general background of the Budget. Indeed, it was in the Chancellor's speech that we first had an indication of the general lines of this Measure. It is made necessary by the fact of general rising prices and the fact that for as far ahead as we can see, the labour force in this country will remain stable, until it begins to decline.
So far as the first point is concerned, the steady decline in the purchasing power of money, which has been so much accelerated recently and seems likely to continue, will, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, present the whole scheme of the Insurance Fund with a very great


difficulty. Where the actuarial soundness of the scheme is based upon the contributions paid by a boy who enters industry at the age of 15 and does not begin to draw retirement pension until the age of 65, or as we hope at 70, it is obvious that it is desirable and indeed essential that, so far as possible, the purchasing value of money shall remain stable during the whole of that time. If, as has generally been the case in the past, there is a decline in the purchasing power of money, there is a great danger that the contributor will find at the end of his long career of work in industry that the benefit for which he has been contributing for so long, has a smaller purchasing value in the form of goods than he had expected at the time when he was compelled to enter the scheme.
It is largely for that reason that we have twice within the last four or five years been confronted with a problem to which I have ventured to draw the attention of the House. The first occasion was when the Colonial Secretary—whom we are all glad to see here taking a paternal interest in the amendment of a Measure which he piloted through the Committee upstairs and the House with so much tact and good humour—was still responsible for this scheme. We had assistance scales produced which in certain respects were above the level of insurance benefit. I ventured then to draw the attention of the House to the anomaly that when a man or woman has contributed during the whole of a working life in order to obtain a retirement pension as a matter of right, the value of that pension is not greater—when rent is taken into account it may well be less—than the scale of assistance which the Assistance Board considers necessary to prevent a person who is not insured from falling into want. That is an anomaly to which I do not see an entirely satisfactory solution, but it is clearly one to which we must give attention.
For that reason I am glad that in the Measure which we are discussing tonight there is this proposal for the increase in the basic rate of pension to be paid as a matter of right to men over the age of 70 and women over the age of 65. It is a considerable step in the direction of raising the insurance benefit which can be claimed as a matter of right, to a

higher level than the amount which has previously been paid by the Assistance Board to those who come to it on the ground of need.
The other dominating cause for this Bill is the importance of keeping the elderly at work, if they are physically capable of work and desirous of continuing. Although there was nothing new or revolutionary in the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it gave me great satisfaction because I felt that he was directing the attention of the country as a whole to what must become an increasing social problem. If we are to have anything in the nature of a rise in the standard of living in this country, it can only come because of the larger number of the elderly who are continuing in work. I do not rest that contention purely upon economic grounds. I base it also on the need for the provision of workers in the social industries. One of the greatest contributions to the provision of nurses for the hospitals for example, would be if many of those who are in them at the present time, were able and willing to work beyond the retirement age.
This policy met with general acceptance in the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Toxteth (Mr. Bevins) raised it on Friday, 13th April. If we can make it easy and agreeable to those who could retire today to remain on and continue to make their contribution to the prosperity and well-being of the country as a whole, it would make both for their happiness and for the good of the country. I, therefore, feel that the Bill before us tonight is introduced partly because of the need for dealing with the rising cost of living, and partly because of the importance of increasing the labour force.
Having said that, I am bound to ask myself and the House whether the right hon. Lady who introduced this Bill, in a speech so lucid, clear and persuasive, has in fact used the money available in the best possible way. We have heard today a number of quotations from the Beveridge Report. It is right that we should, because the whole of this legislation was based upon that very remarkable Report. There is one passage in it which I should like to quote:
It is dangerous to be in any way lavish to old age, until adequate provision has been assured for all other vital needs, such as the


prevention of disease and the adequate nutrition of the young.
That is no less true now than it was when Lord Beveridge wrote it. I thought that "The Times," in an article on 12th April, written after the publication of the White Paper dealing with this Bill, wrote something which we should all bear in mind. The article said:
Yet it is plain beyond doubt that the nation cannot at present afford to raise pensions all round, just as it cannot afford to give pensions to people still at work…the pensioners' share of the national income is larger than the Beveridge Report thought wise…
It added that the cost of retirement pensions was double what the Report assumed, while aggregate incomes derived from wages and the ownership of property, from which the cost of pensions had to be found, were only three-quarters higher. It is because of these financial limitations under which the Government, and the right hon. Lady in particular, are labouring, that there has been this departure from one of the basic Beveridge principles—flat rate benefits for flat rate contributions. The Colonial Secretary will remember that that was an accepted principle of the Act when it was introduced.
It is important for the House to realise what a fundamental departure we are making today, when we give a Second Reading to this Bill, in increasing the retirement pension for a certain category of the aged while leaving the benefits of the unemployed and the sick where they are. I think the right hon. Lady is right in this respect, because she has to recognise that she is operating under financial limitations. When I use the phrase "financial limitations," I do not mean merely the matter of money. Money is only worth what it will buy. When we are considering these pensions, we are really considering the goods and services which are to be made available to any class of the community.
I am not entirely sure that this raising of the benefit rate was the best use to which this money could be put. In a reply which the right hon. Lady gave on 15th April, she pointed out that only one-fifth of the men and one-quarter of the women of pensionable age and drawing retirement pensions are in receipt of assistance from the Board. That probably means that four-fiths of the men and three-quarters of the women either

have some other source of income or are perhaps living with relatives, and are able to obtain relief from the full burden of the cost of living in that way. It must also be noted, and here I am quoting from the last Report of the Assistance Board, that in the case of the non-contributory pensioners over 70—those who because of their means are able to claim non-contributory pensions—they owned property, apart from the houses which they themselves occupied, of a value of £75,500,000, bringing in an annual revenue of £11,500,000 to them.
Therefore, we have to ask ourselves to what extent this increase in the basic rate of pensions is actually going to those who are in the greatest need. We on this side of the House had decided to press the right hon. Lady for an assurance that the Assistance Board scales would be in-increased in a way comparable with the increase in the basic rate; otherwise, it would have meant that all those pensioners over the ages of 65 and 70 who are at present in the greatest need, as is shown by the fact that they have applied for, and have been granted, assistance by the Board, would only have had their assistance diminished by the amount of the increased pension. Our minds have been set at rest by what the right hon. Lady has said this afternoon, and therefore I do not quarrel with what she has decided to recommend to the House, since the assistance scales are to be increased to a comparable extent, though not necessarily by an identical amount.
Of course, I must say that the majority of us on this side of the House would be entirely opposed to any extension of this benefit to men below the age of 70 and women below 65. We entirely accept the line of argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was repeated by the right hon. Lady this afternoon, and we consider that this increase in the basic rate is only justifiable in so far as it is going to act as an inducement to persons to stay on for a longer time in industry.

Mr. T. Brown: The hon. Gentleman would not deny pensions or assistance to the blind people of this country?

Mr. Molson: I was not referring to the blind at all.
I recognise that it is quite impossible satisfactorily to deal with all categories of workers in exactly the same way, but


I have been impressed by the point made on both sides of the House that we must make quite certain that those who are physically incapable of going on, and especially those engaged in very hard manual labour, which it is far more difficult for them to continue to do than is the case with clerical or light occupations, will benefit. We must, during the Committee stage, make certain that there is no unfairness in the operation of this Bill.
The thoughts of both the Government and the Opposition have been turning in the same direction. On our side of the House, a little committee was set up some time ago to consider what might be done on these general lines. We had two indications that the Government, with their greater resources, were engaged in the same kind of thought. The first indication was the answers returned by the right hon. Lady to the Parliamentary Questions which we put down. The sibylline answers in which she conveyed nothing, made us think that she was thinking a great deal. We made a request to the Government to be allowed to talk to the Government Actuary on these matters about retirement. When we were refused access even to so completely non-political and abstruse a mathematician as the Government Actuary, we thought there was some reason why he was being kept in purdah. When the Budget speech was made, we understood all about it.
There were two matters upon which we had thought of making recommendations. I should like to throw them out tonight, and we may advance them on the Committee stage. We thought it would be a great inducement to many men to continue in industry if by so doing they could earn a comparable increase in the pension for their wives as well as for themselves. Under the law as it is at present, the increase is 2s. in respect of each one of them for each year the man works. Under this Bill, the 3s. increase is only for the man himself, or for the wife in the event of his death. We should like the Government to consider whether it might not be a great inducement if we could give rather more financial advantage by extending that benefit to the case of the wife.
The second point on which we want to make a suggestion is that, as things

are at present, a man can earn an increase in the pension of his wife only from the time that she becomes 60 years of age. We feel that there are many cases where a man is married to a woman some years his junior, and that he would be glad to continue in work if, by doing so, he could assure her an increase in her pension. We do not want to carry that to a ridiculous length, and we think it should be limited to the case where the wife is 50. It would become payable only when she reached the age of 60, and where the man had been in the insurance scheme for a period of 10 years. That is an attempt at making a constructive suggestion on a fairly small scale, but one which might serve to advance the purpose of this Bill. We thought that with those limitations it would not lend itself to any great abuse.
This brings us to the fact that at present we know very little about the motives which induce some men to remain on in industry and others to retire. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made a speech upon this subject on 13th April. He referred to the interesting report by Mr. B. M. Osborne, which has been presented to the Minister of National Insurance; but he also pointed out that in what Mr. Osborne had to say about the number of men and women who either retire or stay in industry, he had not distinguished between those who were coming under the operation of the retirement provisions contained in the 1946 Act.
I would urge upon the right hon. Lady that it is extremely important that she should know, by making inquiries from managers of branches in different parts of the country and from the men and women concerned, what exactly are their motives in this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale), in the same debate, referred to the difficulty of this whole problem, and suggested that it should be examined either by a Royal Commission or by a departmental committee. I much prefer the departmental committee, because I think that a Royal Commission is a steam-hammer for cracking a nut.
I believe that an inter-departmental committee, in which the right hon. Lady's Department and the Ministry of Labour were jointly concerned might result in a


number of these problems being resolved. I have become a little bit familiar with these problems in the last few weeks when trying to look into this matter on our unofficial Conservative committee, and I think they are matters which could very well be inquired into by a small body of officials accustomed to the administration of these Measures.
It follows straight and logically from this, of course—although it did not seem to have occurred to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), that this was so—that if one is going to have retirement pensions and not old age pensions paid arbitrarily at a certain age, one must have an earnings rule. I have no doubt about the need, for maintaining an earnings rule, but the moment one begins to consider exactly what the provisions of that rule are to be, then at once one gets into difficulties in which it is very desirable that we should have knowledge of the way those concerned may react.
We must consider three separate cases. We all want to encourage the largest possible number of regular workers, who are fit and willing to do so, to continue for an extra five years at least in the particular job in which they have been engaged during most of their working life. That is the greatest contribution we can make to their happiness and to the production of the wealth of the country as a whole. Secondly, there is the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) referred—the considerable number of those unable to continue in a full-time job who are able and willing to continue in a half-time job. Thirdly, there are those who, despite all we can do to encourage them to stay on, feel they must retire at the earliest possible age because of failing health or for some other perfectly good reason.
When they have retired we do not want to discourage them from making those casual earnings in a job such as gardening which will be to their advantage and to the advantage of the country as a whole. But it is extremely difficult to draft an earnings rule which is going to encourage people to stay on in their permanent job and which is not going to discourage others from staying on in a half-time job and, at the same time, is going to be reasonable to those in casual employment. What we want to do is first to encourage the first category and secondly to encourage the second category and then not

to penalise the third category unduly. I urge upon the right hon. Lady that this is the kind of matter which with advantage can be considered by an inter-departmental committee.
I hope the Government will consider the particular case of the orphan, which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). I did not hear him mention one point which I think the right hon. Lady will find is correct, and that is that in the 1946 Act the National Assistance Board is prevented from giving assistance to an individual under the age of 16. Therefore, the orphan is not able to obtain from the Board assistance of which he stands in need because of the inadequacy of the pension which is paid under the National Insurance Act. It is our intention to put down an Amendment on this matter on the Committee stage. I hope the Government will give sympathetic consideration to it.
I had intended to say something in support of the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), that the Government should modify the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the financing of the Fund. Most of us on this side of the House entirely accept his objective, but we do attach the very greatest importance to maintaining the tripartite partnership in this great insurance scheme in which the employer, the employed, and the State all contribute their part; and it would surely be quite wrong if the State, which has been so largely responsible for organising and developing this great scheme, which, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), brings the miracle of the averages to the support of the poor, did not continue this system of insurance upon the basis which has been so advantageous.
It would surely be wrong that the State should not continue to be a full participant in the scheme as it is at the present time, and therefore we far prefer that the contributions shall continue to be made under the pool scheme of Section 2 (3, a) of the Act, rather than under the block grants that are made under Section 2 (3, b), when this Bill is on the Statute Book, as I hope and believe it soon will be.
When it is necessary for the Ministry to produce a new pamphlet explaining the provisions of the retirement pension, I hope that the existing pamphlet will be completely re-drafted, and that something will be done to show that the real retirement pension is not the minimum retirement pension which can be earned at the age of 65, but that the real standard rate is the maximum rate at 70, 45s. for a man and 30s. for his wife. I believe that if the Ministry approach the thing from the opposite angle, and regard the ordinary rate of retirement as being the maximum rate, and the other as being the proportional rate for those who, for some reason or another, are obliged to retire sooner, we may go a long way to achieve the purpose which both sides of the House have in mind, of encouraging the maximum number of people to remain in industry to the advantage of the country as a whole and, I am sure, to the advantage of those people who continue to work.

9.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Bernard Taylor): The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) on this topic has as usual given us clear, convincing and enlightening opinions. I remember that during the passage in Committee of the National Insurance Bill itself his arguments were always listened to with the greatest interest. I am happy in the knowledge that he, in winding up this debate, gives almost 100 per cent. support to the proposals that are contained in the Bill. On the question of the National Assistance scales, on which my right hon. Friend made some comments, we note that the hon. Member—and I think he was voicing the view of all hon. and right hon. Members in the House—is assured.
Let me refer to one other matter—one very important matter—that he raised towards the end of his speech. It was also raised by the hon. Member for Angus. North (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). It is in relation to the guardian's allowance. My right hon. Friend informs me that particular note will be taken of what has been said about that; it will be examined carefully; it will not be overlooked, and no doubt it will be raised again in Committee. I think I should be voicing the sentiments of the whole House in saying

that the debate today has been very interesting and has revealed the depth of interest taken in the problems of those who come within the scope of the National Insurance Act. In passing, I may say that those affected by that Act form a very large family, when we remember that there are in the neighbourhood of 24 million contributors.
I do not propose to go into the details of the Bill, because they were exhaustively explained by my right hon. Friend in, if I may say so, a very charming speech, during which she gave a lot of useful information on every aspect of the Bill, and which I trust and believe will provide substantial material for thought on both sides of the House, and I hope in the country as a whole on this important topic. I should not like this opportunity to pass without reiterating what I thought was a very important passage of my right hon. Friend's speech. I should like to emphasise it with all the force at my command, because I believe that if we do not see this Bill in this perspective we miss its importance. It is an interim Measure to deal with those questions which we at the Ministry feel cannot wait until the general review in 1954.
I do not propose to enter in detail into the question of the finances of the Bill, which were commented on in an interesting speech from the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake). In view of what has been said today about the financial proposals of the Bill, I ought to say that the Exchequer is not taking one penny piece from the fund set up under the National Insurance Act, 1946. It is estimated that the surplus in that fund, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, will be in the neighbourhood of £540 million. I only say that this surplus is due mainly to the fact that instead of unemployment being 8½ per cent., which the Government Actuary assumed on Government instructions, it has been only from 1½ to 2 per cent.
I think that the debate may be summarised in this way. There have been in the main four points constantly in front of the House. First, there is the question of the differentiation in the basic rate of pension to men who have reached the age of 70 and to women who have reached the age of 65. I hope to make a few observations upon this important point which


has appeared to exercise the minds of hon. Members, particularly those on this side of the House. The second point which has been much in the forefront of the debate has been the question of the earnings' rule. Point three has been the proposed rate in the increments of those who postpone their retirement, and point four is the question of bringing the proposals into operation at an earlier date than October this year. I know that there have been many other details referred to, but in the time at my disposal I propose to deal as exhaustively as I can with the points which I have mentioned. I think that it will be agreed that the other details, although of importance, will best be dealt with in Committee.
With regard to the differentiation in the basic rate, why have the Government made the proposals contained in the Bill? Of paramount importance is the need for people to continue in employment in the situation in which the country finds itself at the moment. I do not think that any one has denied that that is a matter of importance and of substance. It is vital from the national point of view that people should continue at work as long as possible, so that the steady increase in the proportion of elderly people in the country will not result in a corresponding reduction in the proportion of workers.
How often it has been said, particularly since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget, that the age structure of our British population has undergone and will continue now and in the future to undergo a change. Whatever happens from a population point of view in the next 25 or 30 years, there is nothing that will alter that fact. At the moment, one to every five of our working population has reached the minimum pension age, and in 25 years' time the ratio will have undergone a considerable change in as much as it will be one to three.
The second point is that any increase in the rate of pension payable at the age of 65 in the case of men or 60 in the case of women might encourage people to retire at that age and take their pension, supplemented, possibly, by part-time earnings. At that age a very substantial proportion of the people are still capable of full-time employment. If that line were adopted it would result in a loss to industry of many regular workers. There seems to be a general impression amongst

hon. Members that the idea of paying a larger pension to men who retire at 70 than to men who retire at 65 is a new idea, but that is not the case. The Act of 1946 provides that a man who retires at the age of 70 should become entitled to a higher pension than a man who retires at 65. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) also suggested that we were dividing pensioners into two classes, but again this is not the case. The pensioner under 70 will get a higher pension in his turn.

Mr. T. Brown: But subject to conditions.

Mr. Taylor: May I say two words about the uniformity of benefits?

Mr. Bartley: Would my hon. Friend deal with what I consider an unfair position for some, through the giving of higher pensions to those of 70 years of age to encourage workers to postpone retirement? In this country, particularly in the coalfields, it is not a question sometimes of postponing retirement. There is no adult manpower problem in the Durham coalfield, and it is a case of a man having to retire. In that case he will not get a pension until he is 70, through no fault of his own. Would my hon. Friend deal with that question?

Mr. Taylor: I hope to deal with that point, but before coming to it, may I say a word or two about costs. To extend the increased rates of pension to all persons over minimum pension age would greatly increase the cost to the National Insurance Fund, not only in the immediate future but much later on when, as I have pointed out, the proportion of the population receiving these pensions increases. It has been rightly said by some of my hon. Friends that the immediate increase in basic pension to those under 70 years of age would cost £10 million, rising to £15 million in 15 years' time.
We are endeavouring, by increasing the basic pension for those of 70 years of age for men and 65 for women, to meet those who are in the greatest need. Judging by the applications that are received by the National Assistance Board it is a case of a greater proportion of retirement pensioners in the over-70 age group finding the existing benefit rates inadequate than is the case with the lower age groups. Therefore, we are obliged to meet the need where it is greatest, which is the basis of these proposals.


I want to make one other observation on this point which I think is important. People under 70, by continuing to work for only 18 months after 65, will be able to receive increments on their pension, which will bring the rate up to and even above the standard rate which the Bill provides for pensioners over 70. I now want to say a word in reply to my hon. Friend——

Mr. Bartley: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, I want to put another point to him. Is it realised that the State saves about £120 a year in the case of a man who continues working? My hon. Friend should consider the number of years the man has to draw his pension to get that back.

Mr. Taylor: That is a point which can be raised on the Committee stage. I now want to speak about workers in heavy industries.

Miss Ward: Might I just ask——

Mr. Taylor: If disablement were to be a condition of a higher rate of pension——

Miss Ward: Miss Ward rose——

Mr. Taylor: It is not through discourtesy that I do not give way to the hon. Lady; it is the time factor. If incapacity or disablement were to be made a condition of a higher rate of pension, it would be quite impossible to apply different tests from one area to another. It must be recognised that a national scheme can only make provision of general application. Where the special conditions of an industry warrant special provision—I hope the employers and the representatives of the workers will take notice of this—it is a matter of the conditions of employment in the industry and a solution should be arrived at through industrial negotiation. There are about one million retirement pensioners in the under 70 group. We do not know how many of these can be said to be incapable of work, nor do we know the number of pensioners in this group with small earnings which, when added to their standard pension, bring the total above the increased pension rate proposed for the higher age groups.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) asked for information about expectation of life. I am informed that

the expectation of life for a man is 12½ years at 65 and nine years at 70, and for a woman 18 years at 60 and 14 years at 65. In view of the time at my disposal I suggest that matters relating to the earnings rule and increments should be considered during the Committee stage.
I want now to make one or two observations about what we shall do to publicise the new proposals. In a general way, the widest publicity will be given in the Press and over the radio to all the proposals to ensure that those who are affected by the changes know what they must do to benefit from them. As to retirement pensions, when the time comes retirement pensioners who qualify for an increase in the rate of their pension will be asked to take or send their old books to the nearest national insurance office for uprating. There will be leaflets telling them exactly what to do and these will be available in good time. There will also be a leaflet for retired pensioners who wish to re-enter employment and qualify for the improved increment of pension provided for in the Bill. This leaflet will tell them just where they stand and what they must do.
There are beneficiaries other than retirement pensioners, particularly widows, and the chief change is in the improved allowances for children. As the amount for which the beneficiary will qualify varies according to the number of children in his family, individual invitations to claim the allowances will be sent direct to everyone likely to be affected. Widowed mothers will be sent a letter telling them about the increases in their benefit as well as the improvement in the allowances for children.
Judging from the debate this afternoon there is little or no criticism of the proposals in the Bill, but there are some points of difference respecting things which are not in the Bill and which many hon. Members think ought to be in it. We can have a full discussion of those points during the Committee stage. I rather gathered from some of the speeches made by my hon. Friends that they thought the proposals in the Bill increased the retiring age at which pensions will be paid. If hon. Members have got that impression, I ask them to make a further investigation of the proposals contained in the Bill.
May I commend this Bill to the House and ask that it shall be given a Second Reading. We shall do all we can about the time factor and to advance the date. Although administratively the Ministry of National Insurance is overworked, we shall certainly do our best.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down may I ask a question? Will the Money Resolution be so widely drawn as to allow full latitude for discussion?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH WOOL PRICES

British Wool (Guaranteed Prices) Order, 1951, dated 12th April, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th April, approved.—[Mr. George Brown.]

Orders of the Day — ONE-WAY STREET, WESTMINSTER

9.59 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move.
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 10th April, 1951, entitled the London Traffic (Prescribed Routes) (No. 4) Regulations, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 639), a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th April, be annulled.
This is in no sense a party issue. It is purely a technical issue connected with road safety. The particular street involved is Howick Place, which is only about half a mile from this Chamber. I happen to live near by and therefore am familiar with the circumstances. The London Traffic Act, 1924, under which Act, as amended by a later Act, this Order is made, for the first time made it possible to interfere with the free use of the King's highway and, quite properly, Parliament at the time, when there was a Labour Government in office, thought that any interference with the free use of the King's highway ought to be subject to Parliamentary processes and subject to the annulment procedure, of which I am taking advantage tonight.
As far as I am aware, this is probably the first time that a Prayer has ever been moved in respect of a one-way street. I have a very sound reason for asking the Minister tonight to accept the Motion, because the Order does not come into operation until 1st May and there cannot be any particular urgency one way or another. I think I shall make out a substantial case that the Order is bad, and for this reason: not that I object to the street being made a one-way street, but I think it has been made a one-way street in the wrong direction.
Those who go up Victoria Street will be aware of the large building facing on the street belonging to the Army and Navy Stores. Behind that is another building, also belonging to the Army and Navy Stores, in what is called Howick Place, and anybody who goes there occasionally will see that both sides of this rather narrow street are customarily occupied by parked cars. When that is so, there is room for only one line of traffic. Therefore, the case for making the thoroughfare into a one-way street, apart from the direction, is a very strong case indeed.
About eight or nine months ago there suddenly appeared a police notice, "No Entry"—one of those temporary notices, with a light at night. I was a little surrised the first time I saw it. I was driving my car from where I live, seeking to get into Victoria Street, and accustomed to driving along to the end into Artillery Row, turning left at the end of that road and then into Victoria Street, where there are traffic lights, which affords a perfectly safe way of moving from this back street into Victoria Street.
When I first saw the notice, I thought that repairs were being carried out, but I observed that they were not. I made inquiries and discovered the existence of this Act of Parliament to which I have referred. I found that a street could not be blocked in this way without what was called a regulation; we now call them Statutory Instruments. I looked through the records in the Library and found that no Statutory Instrument had been published prohibiting entrance into the street from west to east. I telephoned the police station concerned, at Rochester Row, but they could not give me very much information. I was referred to New Scotland Yard, and so I telephoned the Traffic Department and had a conversation with


the gentleman there. I said, "Surely this notice is illegal." He sounded a little embarrassed. I made further inquiries and came to the conclusion that the notice which was erected in the street, prohibiting me or anybody else from driving a vehicle down it, was an illegal notice.
I then put down a Question to the Home Secretary, who controls the Metropolitan Police. His relationship with other police forces is slightly tenuous, but with regard to the Metropolitan Police he is the "very big noise." I asked the right hon. Gentleman why this illegal notice had been put up. He did not deny that it was an illegal notice, but said that it was an experiment. I have a great respect for the Home Secretary—he is a most honest and honourable man—and that he should conduct an experiment which was illegal rather shocked me.
The illegal notice continued for another few weeks, and then one day it suddenly vanished. I thought I had won my battle, because I did not think that the Home Secretary or the Commissioner of Police should put up notices which are illegal. I had said to a policeman on the telephone, "If I drive down this street, will you summon me?" He did not quite know the answer—he could not have done; he would have had to prove an offence, and the only offence which he could have proved was that the right hon. Gentleman and his deputy across the road in New Scotland Yard were doing something which was illegal. I think it is very improper for Home Secretaries and Commissioners of Police to commit crimes. Their prerogative is that of mercy, but they cannot extend it to themselves. I have been waiting for weeks for this document, Statutory Instrument No. 639, to appear, and I think it appeared last week. I hope that hon. Members have seen it. The pertinent paragraph says:
Every vehicle entering that length of Howick Place in the City of Westminster, which lies between its junction with Artillery Row and its junction with Francis Street, shall, between the point of its entry therein and the point of its departure therefrom, proceed from east to west.
I want to proceed from west to east and I will explain why. If anyone is driving past the South-Western District Post Office—and I am discussing a local problem with which probably every hon. Member present is familiar because he has either walked or driven along that street

—if the notice is put up, as it will be if the Order is agreed to, on 1st May, everyone driving there will have to turn left into Francis Street and then go into Victoria Street at a point just where there is a bus stop.
Those who know the Army and Navy Stores know that the corner is occupied by Fuller's café and the bus stop is immediately opposite. If one is driving that way, as I was yesterday with my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Crouch)—who will second this Motion—one has to wait a long time for traffic to pass. We watched and there were five buses yesterday afternoon. One cannot see what traffic is coming and one has to get to the other side of Victoria Street under conditions which involve risk to pedestrians, to other vehicles and to the vehicle in which one is driving.

Mr. Manuel: Shift the bus stop.

Sir H. Williams: This Order does not relate to the bus stop or I would say that the stop should be further up the street. I am describing the facts. If the street were made a one-way street the other way round—I agree it should be a one-way street—one would travel down and get into Artillery Row and then into Victoria Street at traffic lights, and there would be no danger.
My whole case is that a mistake has been made. Who made the mistake I do not know. I know that in these matters the Minister is advised by the London Traffic Advisory Committee and I am not certain who is on that Committee. I think the London County Council nominate some members, probably the Metropolitan Joint Standing Committee nominate some, the right hon. Gentleman and the Commissioner nominate others and they are supposed to advise the Minister. I suggest that on this matter the advice they have given is not worth the paper on which it was written. I do not believe any members of that Committee inspected the street and I am certain none of them drove a vehicle in the direction I have frequently driven in it.
They have not the foggiest idea of the danger in which this will involve the public. I have some idea that because of my activities in telephoning Rochester Row and Scotland Yard, some


examination was made of my proposal and I have some impression that the police thought my idea a bad one. I have an idea that the engineer to Westminster City Council thought it a bad one, but I also have an idea that they gave no reason why they thought it a bad one. I suggest that the point was never discussed. This proposal will involve danger every day of the year to people driving vehicles along Francis Street into Victoria Street and also to pedestrians, as there is much pedestrian traffic there.
I have driven that way on many occasions and yesterday I took my hon. Friend because he was kind enough to say that he would second this Motion. We made a thorough inspection. I have discussed the matter with a lot of people who are familiar with the circumstances. I have not met a single person who knows the circumstances, who does not agree that I am right in asking the Minister of Transport to look at the matter again. If he will nominate anyone he wishes from his Department, and if the Home Secretary will nominate anyone he wishes from Scotland Yard, I shall be only too delighted to show them on the spot that this is a most foolish Order.

Mr. Porter: The hon. Member agrees that this street should be a one-way street. Can he tell us whether the traffic proceeding in the way suggested by the Order will turn into the traffic when it comes out of the street?

Sir H. Williams: Traffic travelling from west to east will be forced to turn into Victoria Street at a most dangerous point.

Mr. Porter: But if traffic goes down this one-way street, will it have to cross the traffic when it emerges?

Sir H. Williams: Let us have a committee of inspection. We are considering a proposition which may involve peril to large numbers of people. My sole interest in this matter is the safety of people who happen to use that part of the world. In the course of a year they amount to a vast number.
This proposed arrangement is a very bad one. My appeal is that the Minister should look at it again. After all, the experimental lights were taken away about eight weeks ago and the street has since been a two-way street. It was said at that time that the experiment had come

to an end. I had hoped that the Home Secretary would send me a report on this experiment. I often pass this place and I have never seen anybody examining the proposition up to now. A policeman on foot is not the best adviser. Here is a proposal which I think involves peril and risk of danger, death or injury to vast numbers of people. Whether there have been accidents up to now I do not know, but every time I have driven that way, which has been quite frequently, I have felt worried until I have successfully passed that point, because one has to cross one line of traffic going west to get into the line of traffic going east, and Victoria Street is very busy.
I appeal to the Minister to postpone this Order. If be will accept my proposal he can, in a week's time if he thinks I am wrong, publish a similar Order. If he thinks I am right, he can publish an Order reversing the direction in which this should be a one-way street. I make a most sincere appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter afresh. I am satisfied that he has made this Order on the advice of an advisory committee. This is not the sort of matter which normally comes under Ministerial consideration. The Minister receives advice and makes an Order—that is normal routine in every Government Department
Here is a case of danger to people, and it is for that reason that I make my appeal. I know the district very well. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a concession by postponing the operation of this Order for a short time while this question is looked at by people on the spot. To do so would in any event only continue unchanged for a week or a fortnight what has been happening for the last two months.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Crouch: I beg to second the Motion.
I can quite understand that some hon. Members may wonder why I am doing so, but since I have been a Member of this House I have for several months spent some four or five days a week in London, and I have made myself much more acquainted with the streets and the movement of the traffic here than I should otherwise have had the opportunity of doing. I, too, frequently go along Victoria Street and the various streets


near by, when I go to the exhibitions held by the Royal Horticultural Society in their hall in Vincent Square. I therefore know something about the line of the streets and the amount of traffic that goes over them. As my hon. Friend has said, yesterday he and I made a thorough inspection of the actual position that has arisen.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would the hon. Member state if he inspected the position before he agreed to second the Motion?

Mr. Crouch: I had walked down the street before I visited it yesterday, but one cannot fully appreciate the danger unless one is in a mechanically propelled vehicle because the conditions are different for people who are walking.
Yesterday I rode in a mechanically propelled vehicle and when we came up Francis Street there was a bus stop. In fact it was not a question of one bus which was holding us up; there were motor cars passing as well as the bus which was preventing us from going out. Actually we had to wait until five buses had picked up their passengers before we could proceed into Victoria Street. By the time we had lined up in the traffic we were again stopped by the lights operating from Artillery Row. It appears to me that it would be wiser and safer if the one-way street were reversed so that the traffic coming into Victoria Street would be controlled by traffic lights. I can see that when this one-way street is made there will be a congestion arising from the traffic from Francis Street.
I have always been very interested in the safety of the public on the roads, whether they are pedestrians or whether they are riding in mechanically propelled vehicles. If this Regulation is carried out, and the Order is made, there will most definitely be accidents on this site, and they could easily be prevented if the traffic passing into Victoria Street came against the traffic lights. We all know that the property concerned is an almost square block, and there are lights to prevent traffic coming out at the wrong time into an exceedingly busy street. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and not to allow traffic to pour out at an uncontrolled spot into what is an exceedingly busy street.

10.18 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I am glad that the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has cleared away the police difficulties. I confess I began to be alarmed when I gathered he was suggesting to hon. Members that they should examine this problem on the spot. I was not clear where that would lead me in this rather complicated problem. I agree with the hon. Member that, at any rate since I have been Minister, this is the first time this subject has been raised by the process of a Prayer.
These matters are of some importance. They affect a restricted area, but from time to time they concern a number of people and I should be the first to admit that they require very careful consideration. It is also correct that in matters of detail of this kind the Minister is bound to depend to a large extent on expert advice. When we come to the difficult and increasing problem of London traffic, I do not think that there is any body of persons so experienced in the matter as the Metropolitan Police. They are in daily contact with the problem and, of course, they have every interest in facilitating the flow of traffic. They are concerned, probably as much as anyone, to reduce the accident toll. Wherever one contemplates interfering with, or restricting, the movement of people, I think that the policy we follow is wise. In this case we proceeded first by way of experiment. About 12 months ago the police thought that this spot should be subject to an experiment of this character.

Sir H. Williams: It was illegal.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, I agree; but, as I indicated, the hon. Gentleman cleared up that point earlier. Therefore, it does not represent a complication to me now. However, rather fortunately, before the illegality had been discovered, or before the matter was enforced by the persistency of the hon. Member, the experiment had been concluded.

Sir H. Williams: It went on for eight weeks afterwards.

Mr. Barnes: Oh, did it? I do not accept any responsibility for that. However, it was conveyed to me that this experiment had in fact facilitated the flow of traffic at this point. The matter


automatically came before the Home Counties Advisory Committee, who always consider matters of this character and advise me before I make a regulation. At that stage we had reached the situation that the police were convinced that this was a desirable improvement. My divisional road engineer concurred with the police conclusion, and the matter went before the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee. On that Committee there are representatives of the Westminster City Council. As a matter of fact, the Mayor of Westminster is a member of that Committee. The Westminster City Council had no objection to the regulation, and this committee which advises me on all these questions of prescribing routes, endorsed the conclusion.

Sir H. Williams: Was His Worship the Mayor present at the meeting of the subcommittee when this was recommended?

Mr. Barnes: I cannot answer that question.

Sir H. Williams: I can.

Mr. Barnes: I do not know what members are present at these meetings. I had reached the stage where the police, my divisional road engineer and the Westminster City Council, who must know this spot very well, had no objection, and the body to whom I look for advice on these matters endorsed this proposal.
Let me explain the position to the House. I readily agree that in any proposal to turn a thoroughfare into a oneway street, it is obvious that the case for entry at one end against entry at the other is fairly easily decided. That is apparent in most cases. But Howick Place is a narrow thoroughfare which divides two blocks of the Army and Navy Stores. It is largely the customers of this store who use the street for parking their cars whilst shopping. There is a continual stream of pedestrians passing across the thoroughfare from one department of the store to another department.

Mr. Garner-Evans: Over a bridge.

Mr. Barnes: There is a bridge, but they do not all use it; many of them prefer to cross the street. We are not

dealing here with the restriction of pedestrians, but with restrictions on motor traffic.
Therefore, the question is whether the traffic should go into Artillery Row when it leaves Howick Place or should go into Francis Street at the other end. I do not pretend to advance my own personal judgment against the weight of opinion that is established on one side and the weight of opinion of the hon. Gentlemen.

Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me any weight of opinion whatsoever as to which is the right way to make this into a one-way street? Can he quote any arguments presented to the Committee which suggested that my argument is wrong and that the right hon. Gentleman is right?

Mr. Barnes: I am not unfamiliar myself with this spot. I do not pretend to be quite so conversant with it as the hon. Member for Croydon, East, who is continually using it, but I think that, when I quote the considered judgment of the police, the divisional road engineer, the Westminster City Council and the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee, it will show that there is a weight of evidence——

Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman read out to this House any argument which was presented by the police or the divisional road engineer, after I raised this issue, which deals with the points which I made in my speech?

Mr. Barnes: I should say that general judgments represent a strong argument, but I want to deal with the technical aspects of the case itself, and I think that my arguments will be fairly conclusive. When traffic comes out of Howick Place, obviously, it must either enter Artillery Row or Francis Street at the other end. Artillery Row is a much heavier traffic thoroughfare than Francis Street. For instance, there are two bus services using Artillery Row, which empties into Victoria Street where there are traffic lights. The case presented by the two hon. Members appears to rest on the fact that, after a vehicle leaves Howick Place and enters into Francis Street——

Sir H. Williams: The bulk of the traffic that comes into Francis Street has


never gone up Howick Place, but has come down it from the other direction, so that the right hon. Gentleman has been terribly badly advised by his experts.

Mr. Barnes: If the traffic has come down Howick Place and goes into Francis Street, the only argument really rests on the danger from traffic leaving Francis Street and entering into Victoria Street. That is the kernel of the case, as I understand it, and the contention is that that creates a danger. As a matter of fact, traffic has always been coming out of Francis Street into Victoria Street, but the danger is exaggerated.
In Artillery Row, at the other end of the Army and Navy Stores, there is a traffic light which periodically, on a time basis, breaks the traffic flowing along Victoria Street. Therefore any vehicle leaving Francis Street and proposing to enter into the flow of traffic towards Parliament Square, will be subject periodically to that traffic being broken and cleared by the traffic lights near Artillery Row. Any other vehicle coming out of Francis Street and wanting to go in the direction of Victoria Station will enter the flow of traffic without any difficulty at all. What the hon. Gentlemen are asking me to do is to set aside the whole weight of evidence which has determined a great variety of these problems and which represents a very considerable field of experience—greater than can be gathered in any other direction.
I should like to conclude with this statement. I ask the hon. Gentlemen not to press the Prayer tonight. I do not approach these matters in any arbitrary fashion; my only desire is to get the greatest co-operation from all sections of the public. In view of the experiment that is being carried out and the large measure of agreement we have at the present moment, I ask that we should not upset that situation, and I will undertake to have the effect of the scheme watched for a definite period closely and continuously, and if within a reasonable period I find that the weight of evidence is on the side of the hon. Member for Croydon, East, rather than in the direction I am following—and feel bound to follow at the present moment—I shall not hesitate to come to the House with amending Regulations. With that offer, I think the hon. Gentlemen ought to be content

tonight and not press the Motion to a Division.

Mr. Crouch: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it more safe to approach the flow of traffic by turning left than by turning right?

Mr. Barnes: Ultimately it would mean that this traffic would be diverted to Artillery Row, which carries much heavier traffic than Francis Street. I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind what I stated, that the only problem here arises where vehicles are cutting over to the other side, going in the direction of Parliament Square and that the traffic lights automatically break that traffic for a sufficient time to enable them to get across.

10.33 p.m.

Sir H. Williams: The Minister has made us a fair offer, although I had hoped that he would agree to my proposal and accept the annulment of the Regulations to-night and make new Regulations after I have had an opportunity of trying to instruct his experts. I drive a car in London a great deal. The ordinary policeman never drives a oar at all. How many policemen driving from Rochester Row drove along Artillery Row and Francis Street while the experiment was going on?—one, any or none? I say, "None." Has the divisional engineer driven that way? Has he driven that way a dozen times, as I have done, and been frightened every time? I am always nervous when I drive a car into a street where there is a mass of traffic going in one direction and I want to cross that stream of traffic and edge my car into the traffic going the other way. Whenever a motorist does that, he is bound to feel nervous.

Mr. Barnes: While this is in operation, the hon. Member and I will together try out our own experiment.

Sir H. Williams: I will undertake to drive the right hon. Gentleman, because I think he would be safer than if he drove me.

Mr. Barnes: I never sit behind a nervous driver.

Sir H. Williams: I assume that we should sit beside one another. That is the only sensible way. The person on the back seat never sees anything but the back of the neck of the driver, Seriously, everyone


who is familiar with this district agrees with what I say.
I am going to suggest that the police never presented to the Advisory Committee any serious argument to support their opinion. They made a decision and had not the courage to go back on it. They said, "We disagree with the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon, East," but never submitted any argument at any time. If they have, a note must have been taken of it. If it was presented in writing or was an oral report, there must have been a note. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to send me a copy. [Interruption.] Certainly. The Minister quoted certain evidence and I challenge him to send me a copy of any evidence submitted by the police or by his resident engineer. The right hon. Gentleman has said he was advised by certain people and I challenge him to produce evidence in detail to me. I am satisfied that whoever was responsible said, "This is a bad idea, but we have to stick to our original scheme."
I pass this place four or five times a day. I have never seen anybody watching there. I have never seen a policeman observing the movements of traffic. One can drive along the road, keep on the left side, turn to the left, come to the traffic lights and move into Victoria Street in a condition of perfect safety. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very fair offer and I do not propose to divide on this Prayer, which is the first that has been laid under the 1924 Act. I am satisfied, however, that so long as the one-way street is run in that way everyone forced to drive from Francis Street to Victoria Street will do so at their peril and every big vehicle in Victoria Street will be at peril. The Minister has produced no documentary evidence in support of his speech tonight.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles Mac Andrew): Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw?

Sir H. Williams: Sir H. Williams indicated assent.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CLASS Z RESERVISTS (RECALL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: My purpose in discussing tonight the recall of Class Z reservists is not to raise any sensational case where obvious mistakes have been made which could easily be rectified by the War Office. Nor do I intend to attack the general principle of the recall of these reservists, because I supported the Bill cordially when it received a Second Reading in this House. I intend to call attention to two main sources of complaint which have been disturbing my constituents, and which have caused considerable anxiety in the country since the details of the scheme became known. The recall of Z reservists interferes with the normal freedom and daily lives of many people, and that is all the more reason why, in my opinion, the Service Departments should give a full explanation and justification of the way in which this scheme is working. I am particularly grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War has come to the House tonight to deal with this question.
My first major complaint is an apparent breach of the undertaking that few people who served for any length of time during the last war would be recalled. Rightly or wrongly, it was generally understood that the principle of "Last out, first back" would be observed, after attention had been paid to the type of units requiring men with certain specialist qualifications. There is, however, a general feeling in the country that this scheme is not working in that way, and that the call-up is a "hit-and-miss" affair as between one man and another.
There are cases of two men with identical qualifications, one of whom is chosen but the other left alone. From my own experience, and that of other hon. Gentlemen, it seems the older man with longer service appears to be chosen for recall, while the younger man with little or no war service has not been affected this year. I am wondering whether the explanation for this is that given in an article in the "Manchester Guardian" of 8th March last. It seems to me that that


article gives the only logical explanation and, generally speaking, it states that the clue to many Class Z mysteries lies in the very simple fact that almost every reservist, whatever his length of service and specialist qualifications, is provisionally allotted to a unit of the Army. That is to say, whether or not he is recalled for training this summer depends on whether the unit to which he has been allotted is one due to take part in this year's test.
Some units are being called for training, and some are not, and the element of chance has been as much in the choice of unit as in the choice of man. Those men marked for other battalions will have escaped training this year. Every Z reservist is allocated to a unit in case of emergency. Some Regular units are not being called this year, and the men allocated to such units are, in many cases, the younger ones; but in many of the Territorial battalions being called up this year, it is the older men who are being most affected. My main comment on this is that any inequity between one man and another could have been avoided if the first step in the process of calling up had not been to allocate everybody to units, but to decide which units were going to be sent for training this year. The men could then have been allocated after screening by the Ministry of Labour to see that a man was not reserved, with the application of the principle of "last out, first back."
Following the end of the war, and the introduction of compulsory National Service, some 450,000 men were called up for the Army, and after making allowances for the selective nature of that call-up, I should have thought that it could have been so arranged that, from the 450,000, there could have been found the 195,000 men now required without having recourse to men who have already served for a considerable length of time in the Army during the war. It was stated during the Second Reading of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Training) Bill that as many men as possible would be found from those called up after the war, and that none over 45 years of age would be recalled, and few over 40.
Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how many men over 40 have, in fact, been recalled? It is difficult, I

know, to assess that from age and service groups, but the Minister stated on 3rd April that the "last out, first back" principle had operated in the case of the reservists to be recalled this year to a very marked degree. He stated that reservists of age and service groups 1 to 28, which comprised half of the Z Reserve, would be recalled only to the extent of some 1.6 per cent., whereas, reservists of age and service or release groups 29 to 150 would be recalled to the extent of 11.8 per cent. But that is not the comparison. The real comparison is what percentage of men in the earlier groups is being recalled as a percentage of the recall. In actual fact, Z reservists in groups 1 to 28—the older men who have often served for long periods—are being called back to the extent of 12 per cent.
In the groups 29 to 40, a further 11 per cent. of Z reservists are being recalled. Many of these had long war service and are reaching the age of 40 years or over. It seems a disproportionate percentage of reservists, and I would like to read to the House a letter from a Z reservist, 42 years of age, who joined in August 1939, and served until September 1945. He is in age and service group 16. He is a major in the Artillery. He has been called back for service in a mixed unit and when he has made his representations that he does not think the "last out, first back" principle is working, he has been told by the Records Office that there is an acute shortage of officers in his rank in this particular branch which has necessitated recalling all available majors with any Heavy A.A. experience. In a further letter, this constituent tells me that he knows of other cases where there are majors with more heavy A.A. and mixed unit experience than he has who are available for recall. Yet he is affected and they are not. Another case I have got is of a Militiaman called up in 1939 and serving until February, 1946. After six and a half years' service, mostly overseas, he has again been recalled.
I understand my right hon. Friend did give an indication that mistakes had arisen there, but no notification has been sent to this man that he has not to do his service. I hope cases of this kind will be looked into. My second major complaint has been receiving much attention in Questions in the House this week, and that is the apparent inflexibility


of the War Office in giving alternative dates where hardship is involved. We have lots of examples of people being married, of people who have arranged their holidays and people who cannot leave certain jobs because there is a danger of them going down.
If the War Office have come to the decision that on practical grounds they cannot transfer these men, why in the first place were these men invited to make applications on grounds of hardship? I cannot understand why the War Office, with all the facilities at their disposal, are not able to arrange exchanges. The answer given by my right hon. Friend is that the emphasis of this call-up is that these men will work as teams and, therefore, one cannot move one man into another unit because one would break up the team. I should think that one of the main reasons was to test the machinery of call-up and an exercise for mobilisation. I should think it was a better test for their machinery to try to put these men in other units than to say we cannot do it and, therefore, cannot use them. As soon as a man does his training in his unit this summer, it is intended, in the case of general mobilisation, that he should go back to that particular unit with the same personnel. There are many reasons why that may not work out. He may have moved into a reserved occupation, he may be ill, and there may be many reasons otherwise why he cannot serve with the same people. I cannot accept this reason given by my right hon. Friend that he cannot use these men in other units. On 17th April, my right hon. Friend said:
In many cases it is impracticable to change the date of call-up of a Class Z reservist
and later he added:
These units are carrying out training at fixed periods throughout the year and if alternative dates for training were granted it would mean that a reservist would have to train with another unit, and one of the main purposes of the training would be defeated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 1649.]
If he moved a reservist to another unit for Z reserve training when he was called up later in an emergency, one would not expect him to be called up to the original unit but to the unit to which he was transferred. Therefore, to say the team spirit would be broken does not apply in cases like that.
There is one particular case I have been pressing. This concerns a man who was most anxious to do his training, and I have given my right hon. Friend the facts, but the period selected by the War Office for this conflicts with the period when this man is supposed to take a Boys' Brigade to camp. He is the only officer available and unless he can take these boys to camp—doing work of pre-National Service training—these boys are deprived of that camp. The first reply of the War Office was that surely that organisation had sufficient resources at its command to arrange an alternative, but under no circumstances could the War Office do it. It seems to me that the War Office cannot expect a local Boys Brigade to have these resources—which they themselves have not got—and if the War Office cannot arrange that transfer, how can they expect this Boys' Brigade unit to so so?
I have taken this case up again with the Minister. I have impressed upon him the necessity of giving this man an alternative period, because he does want to serve, so allowing these boys who have been looking forward to this camp for a long time to have that enjoyment this summer. I hope in his reply tonight my right hon. Friend will be able to give me some satisfaction on that particular point.
My third complaint is that the War Office promised that where men were to be called up, so far as possible they would do their service near their own homes. Yet I have a case of a man who is in the Durham Light Infantry, with no justifiable grounds for not being accepted as a Z reservist and who, after my explanations of it to him, is willing to do his service in good spirit, but is being posted from the Durham Light Infantry to the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry—almost as far in the country as you could possibly send him. I should like some explanation of what remarkable genius in the Records Office at Exeter found that a man from Stockton in the Durham Light Infantry, is serving as near home as possible in the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry.
My fourth complaint concerns the general adequacy of the Record Offices to tackle this job. I do not want to raise cases that have appeared in some sections of the Press; but I have some information—subject to verification—that on the same day the same Record Office sent to the same person—one of my constituents


—telling him that he had to do training and that he had not to do training—and he does not know which direction to follow. I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he can give me some indication that the Record Offices are reliable, particularly in cases of men demobilised in the period 1945–46.
My general conclusions on all this are: that the real test will begin when the men are actually joining their units. It is only then that we shall find out whether there are many misfits or not. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to answer these two questions for me—how many men have applied for deferment or the alteration of the period of training and in how many cases has this been granted or refused? Finally, I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give us an assurance that this scheme is working well, that the men will be used properly when they reach these camps. I think we would all like to say to them, "jolly good luck" when they do go.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: I should like to ask the Minister if he could give us some indication of the number of Z reservists over the age of 40 who have been recalled or are to be recalled because I do not think that the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) mentioned that category. Will the right hon. Gentleman just confirm the figures?

10.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter, because it gives me an opportunity to give some figures which I think might be of interest to the House, and to the country through the House. I will take up his points one after the other.
My hon. Friend's first main point was the question of the proportion of reservists who had seen war service called up as compared with the proportion who were of the post-war generation in their service. We know the proportion and can give it quite clearly. It is 5 per cent. of the Z reservists who saw war service being recalled this year and 20 per cent. of reservists who are of the post-war generation are being recalled. So we are recalling four times as high a proportion of the post-war generation as of the war generation. I do not think there is any

doubt that we are fully carrying out the pledge we gave to weight the call-up as far as we possibly could so that the post-war generation, in proportion to their numbers, should be called up in considerably greater proportion than the war generation of Z reservists.

Mr. Edward Heath: What is the percentage of those actually being called up?

Mr. Strachey: It is quite different because, obviously, there are incomparably more war reservists than post-war reservists; there are only 400,000 post-war reservists to call up. What matters, of course, is the proportion.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will my right hon. Friend dispute the figures I gave about the percentages of those in the earlier age groups and that 12 per cent. are in the age group of one to 28?

Mr. Strachey: That is the figure I have given in the House. I will quote the statement made on 14th February by the Minister of Defence, which makes perfectly clear that the Government intended to do precisely what it has done. My right hon. Friend said:
We should have preferred to call only upon this second category, that is the men who saw no active service in war, instead of also calling again on those men to whom the country was already so much indebted. But it has to be borne in mind that our aim is to build up complete, balanced formations—and that means selecting men with the right qualifications for the jobs that have to be done. For this reason it will not be possible to adhere strictly to the principle of 'Last out, first back'."—[Official Report. 14th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 416–17.]
We have called four times as high a proportion of the "last-outs" as of the earlier generation, so that we have given that principle great weight; but we have not adhered to it strictly and I do not claim that we have. We are calling up, and have had to call up, a cross section of the whole body of Z reservists and those who have war service were, of course, of the greatest value to the units-to which they were called. I put it to hon. Members that we cannot do this entirely to suit the individual Z reservist. The whole point of the exercise is to increase the efficiency and value of the Reserve formations and I readily admit that we have taken that into account equally with the convenience of Z reservists.
We could have got the whole of the 200,000 men we recalled from the 400,000 post-war generation, but, while that would have been more convenient to the men, it would not have been anything like so good for the four first line divisions of the Territorial Army for which we are calling the men, or the supporting units of the Regular Army, or the Anti-Aircraft Command. What they needed was a cross-section, including a reasonable proportion of senior n.c.o.'s, men with war service, seasoned troops who had been through the last war, and that was why, just as we said we would do, we have called a proportion—no one would have thought it a large proportion—of these men.
It does matter and I ask hon. Members in all parts of the House this question: Are we taking this thing seriously and really trying to make the four first line divisions of the Territorial Army a more efficient and more readily mobilisable force, or simply doing it for fun? That is why we have adhered almost exactly to what my right hon. Friend said we would do.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would the right hon. Gentleman also refer to the statement of the Prime Minister on 29th January, when the scheme was first announced, in which he said that in certain cases key men who had seen war service may be required, whereas it turns out that there are three out of five men with war service?

Mr. Strachey: I have not the words of the Prime Minister in front of me, but there are the words of the Minister of Defence which I have just quoted. They make it perfectly clear, and I should be very surprised if the words of the Prime Minister do not also make it clear, that we were proposing to call up——

Mr. Powell: Three-fifths——

Mr. Strachey: Three-fifths of the number, because, of course, of the total number of Z reservists an incomparably greater number are men with war service. But we have weighted the number we have called enormously heavily on the post-war generation, four times more heavily to be exact. Hon. Members may think that that is wrong, or right, but that is what we said we would do and that is what we have done. That is all I am saying.
My hon. Friend rightly gives a particular instance of this. I do not think he or the gentleman concerned will mind my mentioning his name. He is Major Smallwood, a man of 42 with war service, who has been recalled to an Anti-Aircraft Regiment. He is, I think, a very good example of the sort of man whose exemption would have spoiled the purpose of the exercise. He had valuable war service. I think my hon. Friend is wrong if he tells us that other men in the same category are not being recalled.

Mr. Chetwynd: Majors?

Mr. Strachey: Yes. My information is that we are recalling, unless there is some very special reason for exempting them, all majors of that type for Anti-Aircraft batteries. That is a case no doubt inconvenient for Major Smallwood—where the interests of the Service demands the recall of a man who is 42. I do not think that is so very old, after all, and he can give us good service. It is true that he has been called back to a mixed battery, and he did not serve in a mixed battery before, but I should have thought that would have been an attraction rather than the reverse. The case of the militia man which my hon. Friend mentioned must have been an error because a militia man is not liable.
Now we come to the point about transfer. I have endeavoured to explain to the House that it is difficult for us to give a transfer of date. We have either to call the man up on the date we mention or exempt him altogether. Perhaps we are going rather far in our warning note in actually telling the Z reservist how he should make application; but it is not for a transfer, it is for exemption. That is what we put in the statement at the end of the letter. We give him a tip, as it were, to make his application for exemption. We have given that in a large number of cases. It is mainly because of the non-interchangeability of the reservist himself that makes it difficult to give him a transfer.
This question came up in the House a day or two ago when the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling) raised it. He asked about a man who, at first sight, had good cause for transfer. But the man was a quantity surveyor who was being called up for a specialist job in a Royal Engineer formation. He


could not simply be transferred to the artillery or the infantry or any other category. In a large number of cases, either because of the unit's fixed date, or because of non-interchangeability, or because of a combination of both, it is difficult to give these transfers. On the other hand, we have not set our face altogether against them. In fact, we have made 700 transfers so far. The record offices have been able to give transfers, but I should be holding out false hopes if I said that in the majority of cases we could give transfers.
My hon. Friend mentioned two other cases. In the case of Bramley he has a very strong case. I have looked into it and if no transfer can be effected, an exemption will be given. In the other case where my hon. Friend said that the man had been called to the D.C.L.I., I do not think it is a very great hardship if he does his service with that formation, which is part of the light infantry group, rather than with the D.L.I., which he would prefer. I cannot give the House particulars tonight of the men over 40, but I will get the information if the House would like to have it. The general figures, however, are of interest. So far, we have had just over 9,000 applications for exemption, and when that

figure reaches 10,000, as no doubt it will, they will represent 5 per cent. of the total called up. We have dealt with 8,000, and 1,000 to 1,200 are pending. We have granted 4,000 and refused 4,000.
We have, therefore, granted half of those on which we have come to a decision. I do not think that the impression hon. Gentlemen have got can be sustained. They get chiefly the details of the cases we refuse, but we have granted 50 per cent. of the cases put up to us, and we are going on, of course, with the 1,200 pending cases. Therefore, I do not think it can be said that the War Office is being hard-hearted or inflexible. We are, of course, inflicting hardship by the call-up. We said that in the beginning, but I think it is a degree of hardship, and in giving us these 15 days these reservists will be performing a great national service, and I am sure the House will join with me in asking them to do so.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Seven Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.